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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/8/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 101, the applicant asserts that the amended claims overcome the rejection and amount to significantly more than a mere abstract idea, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner disagrees, however, as the limitations the applicant points to fail to integrate the abstract idea- instead encompassing a new generic computer on which to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitation “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features” is simply a new generic computer added to the claim, and an attempt to link the abstract idea to the technological environment of vehicles. Further, as “enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of set of respective actions by the vehicle” is already explained in the previous rejection to be an abstract idea, the modifications to state that a plurality of sequences are customized by the user does not change this. The “configured to ... establish a user connectivity platform” as before represents implementing the abstract idea of implementing the determining user-customized settings via a generic computer. Finally, the added limitation “wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features” is an extension of the abstract idea, describing an aspect of the user-determinable customization.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejection under all cited references in the previous office action, specifically that “the Fang '817 and Fang '245 references fails to disclose or even suggest the claimed creation and handling of a cascading queue of actions as claimed” and pointing to paragraph [0012]. The paragraph simply states that the vehicle “the vehicle creates and handles a cascading queue of functions for execution (web-based requests, texting, email, remote vehicle operations, vehicle notifications, etc.)” and does not specifically describe that the cascading queue of functions is, leaving this to the broadest reasonable interpretation of a person having ordinary still in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention, in this case the field of vehicle controls. As such, the Fang ‘817 reference does disclose this in paragraph ([0347] “Example and non-limiting remote control operations include a scheduled sequence of a number of operations, including determining conditions when a first scheduled operation is completed and a next operation should be performed.”), in which the sequence can be understood as a cascading queue because the completion of one item in the sequence feeds into the next based on the completion of the preceding item. Therefore, the claiming of a cascading queue of functions, as interpreted in light of the specification, is read on y the existing art.
For the reasons above, the examiner maintains the rejections of the claims under U.S.C. 101 and 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a user connectivity system for a vehicle, the user connectivity system comprising
an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features;
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
and a control system configured to :establish a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; [abstract idea – mental process]
receive, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; [abstract idea – mental process]
create, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type; [abstract idea – mental process]
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions [abstract idea – mental process] and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features;” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a custom set of sequences for their vehicle to perform automatically, these things different from a . Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “create, … a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a sequence of cascading actions in a time order and destringing the time-based trigger, in which there is more than one type of action. “and handle, …execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions” in the context of this claim encompass a person monitoring for a trigger or signal to begin an action. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field]
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
and a control system configured to :establish a user connectivity platform that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; [abstract idea – mental process]
receive, by the user connectivity platform [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; [abstract idea – mental process]
create, by the user connectivity platform, [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type; [abstract idea – mental process]
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions [abstract idea – mental process] and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences. [insignificant extra-solution activity; post-solution data transmitting]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features”, “a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);”, “and a control system configured to: establish a user connectivity platform that”, and “by the user connectivity platform”, are in the context of this claims recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a vehicle and geofence’s location in relation to each other, and whether this is acceptable). Further, the limitation “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features” represents an example of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation to “and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences” is a mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of a determination, as per the specification this set of actions may be simply outputting data to the user ins response to a trigger action being detected- merely outputting the response to a determination.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities, and as above the limitaiosn “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features” amounts to nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, which does not provide an inventive concept. IN this case, the field of technology being typical in-vehicle technology. Finally as discussed above, the additional limitations of the to perform the abstract idea using a “communication system”, “connectivity platform” and the like including cloud servers are mere instructions to apply the exemption using a generic computer, which cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, all of these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 1 above, as the claim is
substantially identical to the examined claims with only minor changes to the limitations; being a method rather than a system, changes which do not affect the analysis as demonstrated above.
Dependent claims 10 and 12-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 10 and 12-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 9.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245.
Regarding Claim 1, Fang discloses:
an infotainment system of the vehicle, (see at least [0716] “a vehicle’s infotainment system”)
wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; (see at least [0471] “Additionally, each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM.”)
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, (see at least [Fig. 13] [0287] “ Referencing FIG. 13, an example system schematically depicts the centralized controller (ECU), an SOA manager, SOA plugins, and communication between vehicle controllers (e.g., ECU, ADAS) and external devices (e.g., cloud).”)
and a control system (see at least [0292] “a centralized controller having an automation manager that determines a customized operation”)
configured to: establish a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of set of respective actions by the vehicle; (see at least [0291] “Example embodiments allow users to create custom trigger-action rules to automate the vehicle environment, and to allow in-vehicle capabilities that were not previously available. For example, embodiments herein include customer control of cabin temperature, lighting, infotainment, seats, windows, sunroof, cabriolet top, driving mode, and/or adjustment of any other actuator or vehicle interface" [0298] "An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller.”)
wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; (see at least [0249] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
receive, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences, (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,” [0030] "The trigger-action rules are sent to the cloud, and the enabled trigger-action rules are consolidated as a “recipe” on the cloud side" [0305] "An example Vehicle Automation Manager (VAM) takes recipes from the cloud as inputs and executes the trigger-action rules in the recipes)
each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; (see at least [0305] “Each trigger-action rule is composed of triggers, conditions, and actions. The triggers are the inputs to the rule that encompass signals from the CAN bus, time”)
create, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, (see at least [0347] “Example and non-limiting remote control operations include a scheduled sequence of a number of operations, including determining conditions when a first scheduled operation is completed and a next operation should be performed.”)
and including at least two actions having a different type (see at least [0295] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a command, such as “Hey car, start my morning commute.” In the example, configured vehicle aspects may include tuning the radio to a selected station and volume, setting a pre-selected navigation destination (e.g., an office), setting the performance mode of the vehicle (e.g., fuel economy mode), setting the driver’s seat position (e.g., forward/reverse, height, tilt, lumbar support, etc.), and/or setting HVAC parameters (e.g., selected cabin temperature).”)
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions (see at least [0346] “An example operation includes a personalized operation, such as playing “Happy Birthday to You” and/or manipulating cabin lights upon the driver entering the vehicle on her birthday. ”)
and (ii) automatically executing the corresponding set of actions for the user-customized sequence. (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
Fang does not explicitly disclose:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions
In the same field of endeavor, 4245 discloses:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); (see at least [0106] “The trigger data may also be taken from any location outside of the vehicle, such as a REST API endpoint in the cloud.”)
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang, which discloses cloud servers and APIs separately, to communicate with the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs), as well as assign time-based trigger conditions to each of the tasks of a cascading queue of tasks, as taught by 4245 to manage triggers for the automation manager via cloud servers [0106].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is configured to automatically execute the set of actions for the user-customized sequences without any input from the user. (see at least [0298] “An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller. For instance, the user could create a trigger-action rule that would automatically turn on the high-beam headlights when there is no oncoming traffic while driving at night”)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
Wherein at least one of the user-customized sequences is a location-based sequence that has at least one vehicle location-based trigger. (see at least [0296] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a system condition, such as an approach of the vehicle to the driver’s home at night. ”)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without involvement of the OEM of the vehicle. (see at least [0304] “the vehicle automation manager allows users to enrich their vehicle experience without waiting for a feature request, approval, and update process. The example vehicle automation manager further allows the user to leverage their own creativity and/or the creativity of 3.sup.rd party application providers to implement improved vehicle interactions.”)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user input is provided by a remote, authorized computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,”)
Regarding Claim 9, Fang discloses:
establishing, by a control system of the vehicle and via a communication system of the vehicle, communication with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, (see at least [Fig. 13] [0287] “ Referencing FIG. 13, an example system schematically depicts the centralized controller (ECU), an SOA manager, SOA plugins, and communication between vehicle controllers (e.g., ECU, ADAS) and external devices (e.g., cloud).”)
wherein the vehicle further includes an infotainment system (see at least [0716] “a vehicle’s infotainment system”)
that is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; (see at least [0471] “Additionally, each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM.”)
establishing, by the control system, a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of set of respective actions by the vehicle; (see at least [0291] “Example embodiments allow users to create custom trigger-action rules to automate the vehicle environment, and to allow in-vehicle capabilities that were not previously available. For example, embodiments herein include customer control of cabin temperature, lighting, infotainment, seats, windows, sunroof, cabriolet top, driving mode, and/or adjustment of any other actuator or vehicle interface" [0298] "An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller.”)
wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; (see at least [0249] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
receiving, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences, (see at least [0299] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; (see at least [0305] “ Each trigger-action rule is composed of triggers, conditions, and actions. The triggers are the inputs to the rule that encompass signals from the CAN bus, time”)
creating, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, (see at least [0347] “Example and non-limiting remote control operations include a scheduled sequence of a number of operations, including determining conditions when a first scheduled operation is completed and a next operation should be performed.”)
and including at least two actions having a different type (see at least [0295] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a command, such as “Hey car, start my morning commute.” In the example, configured vehicle aspects may include tuning the radio to a selected station and volume, setting a pre-selected navigation destination (e.g., an office), setting the performance mode of the vehicle (e.g., fuel economy mode), setting the driver’s seat position (e.g., forward/reverse, height, tilt, lumbar support, etc.), and/or setting HVAC parameters (e.g., selected cabin temperature).”)
and handling, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions (see at least [0346] “An example operation includes a personalized operation, such as playing “Happy Birthday to You” and/or manipulating cabin lights upon the driver entering the vehicle on her birthday.”)
and (ii) automatically executing the corresponding set of actions for the user-customized sequence. (see at least [0292] “and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
Fang does not explicitly disclose:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions
In the same field of endeavor, 4245 discloses:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); (see at least [0106] “The trigger data may also be taken from any location outside of the vehicle, such as a REST API endpoint in the cloud.”)
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang, which discloses cloud servers and APIs separately, to communicate with the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs), as well as assign time-based trigger conditions to each of the tasks of a cascading queue of tasks, as taught by 4245 to manage triggers for the automation manager via cloud servers [0106].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is configured to automatically execute the set of actions for the user-customized sequences without any input from the user. (see at least [0298] “An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller. For instance, the user could create a trigger-action rule that would automatically turn on the high-beam headlights when there is no oncoming traffic while driving at night”)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
Wherein at least one of the user-customized sequence is a location-based sequence that has at least one vehicle location-based trigger. (see at least [0296] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a system condition, such as an approach of the vehicle to the driver’s home at night. ”)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without involvement of the OEM of the vehicle. (see at least [0304] “the vehicle automation manager allows users to enrich their vehicle experience without waiting for a feature request, approval, and update process. The example vehicle automation manager further allows the user to leverage their own creativity and/or the creativity of 3.sup.rd party application providers to implement improved vehicle interactions.”)
Regarding Claim 16, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user input is provided by a remote, authorized computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,”)
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245, and Brown (US 20190360739), herein after referred to as Brown.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API. (see at least [0062] “ By way of example, control circuitry 116 may be configured to process weather data from a cloud server or weather API (e.g. wunderground.com or darksky.net) to determine when to activate and deactivate the heating system 120.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include a weather API in the set of cloud-based APIs as taught by Brown to determine when top operate the heating system [0062].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API. (see at least [0062] “ By way of example, control circuitry 116 may be configured to process weather data from a cloud server or weather API (e.g. wunderground.com or darksky.net) to determine when to activate and deactivate the heating system 120.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include a weather API in the set of cloud-based APIs as taught by Brown to determine when top operate the heating system [0062].
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245, and Penilla (US 20190287080), herein after referred to as Penilla.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla discloses
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle. (see at least [0052] “Customization can include user interface customization of a vehicle display or displays. The customization can include the ability to select specific applications (APPS) to be activated by the vehicle and interfaced via the display or displays, voice input, touch input, etc.") (*Examiner interprets a system where customization may be performed directly to the vehicle using vehicle-based inputs with no mention of a software update, as being performable without a software update)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. While the Fang reference does not explicitly state that a software update is required, it does include a “vehicle update controller” pushing the customization from the cloud to the vehicle so cannot be said to explicitly disclose the customization as performable without a software update- as such the Penilla reference is used for clarity of the record. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to customize the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle as taught by Penilla to input customization directly via a vehicle display [0052].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 14, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla discloses
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle. (see at least [0052] “Customization can include user interface customization of a vehicle display or displays. The customization can include the ability to select specific applications (APPS) to be activated by the vehicle and interfaced via the display or displays, voice input, touch input, etc.") (*Examiner interprets a system where customization may be performed directly to the vehicle using vehicle-based inputs with no mention of a software update, as being performable without a software update)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. While the Fang reference does not explicitly state that a software update is required, it does include a “vehicle update controller” pushing the customization from the cloud to the vehicle so cannot be said to explicitly disclose the customization as performable without a software update- as such the Penilla reference is used for clarity of the record. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to customize the plurality of sequences is performable without a software update of the vehicle as taught by Penilla to input customization directly via a vehicle display [0052].
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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662