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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driving proficiency acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 2; “driving proficiency determination unit” in claim 1; “function learning presentation unit” in claims 1, 3, and 5-9; “learning status acquisition unit” in claim 4; “learning status determination unit” in claim 4; “learning determination result notification unit” in claim 4; “function suppression unit” in claims 6 and 7; “driving operation history acquisition unit” in claim 10; “vehicle setting information acquisition unit” in claim 10; and “vehicle setting information changing unit” in claims 10 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of: “driving proficiency acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 2; “driving proficiency determination unit” in claim 1; “function learning presentation unit” in claims 1, 3, and 5-9; “learning status acquisition unit” in claim 4; “learning status determination unit” in claim 4; “learning determination result notification unit” in claim 4; “function suppression unit” in claims 6 and 7; “driving operation history acquisition unit” in claim 10; “vehicle setting information acquisition unit” in claim 10; and “vehicle setting information changing unit” in claims 10 and 11 are interpreted to have invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f). As such the specification must be written in such a way that disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. In this particular case, the specification paragraphs [0048]-[0053], [0069], and [0080]-[0082] only provide a disclosure of the desired results of each of the units without providing disclosure of the necessary structure, material or acts from that description as being adequate to perform the claimed function.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitations “driving proficiency acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 2; “driving proficiency determination unit” in claim 1; “function learning presentation unit” in claims 1, 3, and 5-9; “learning status acquisition unit” in claim 4; “learning status determination unit” in claim 4; “learning determination result notification unit” in claim 4; “function suppression unit” in claims 6 and 7; “driving operation history acquisition unit” in claim 10; “vehicle setting information acquisition unit” in claim 10; and “vehicle setting information changing unit” in claims 10 and 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this particular case, the specification paragraphs [0048]-[0053], [0069], and [0080]-[0082] only provide a disclosure of the desired results of each of the units without providing disclosure of the necessary structure, material or acts from that description as being adequate to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an “in-vehicle system” (i.e., a machine), claim 12 is directed to a “computer-readable non-transitory storage medium” (i.e., a machine) and 13 is directed to an “in-vehicle system” (i.e., a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
The independent claims recite the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“An in-vehicle system comprising: a driving proficiency acquisition unit acquiring a driving proficiency level of a driver; a driving proficiency determination unit determining the driving proficiency level of the driver; and a function learning presentation unit presenting learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level of the driver.”
Per claim 12:
“A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions to be executed by at least one processor of an in-vehicle system for presenting functions to be learned by a driver of a vehicle, the instructions of the computer program comprising: acquiring a driving proficiency level of the driver; determining the driving proficiency level of the driver; and presenting learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level of the driver.”
Per claim 13:
“An in-vehicle system comprising: a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium; and a microcomputer, by executing a program stored in the computer-readable non-transitory storage, configured to: acquire a driving proficiency level of a driver; determine the driving proficiency level of the driver; and present learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level of the driver.”
The non-highlighted sections of the above limitations, as drafted, define a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of “computer-readable non-transitory storage”, ”microcomputer”, and “processor”, nothing in the above limitations precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the limitations above encompass a mentor acquiring driver proficiency data from a mentee, determining the mentees’ driving proficiency level, and providing the mentee with appropriate learning material.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, the it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are drawn to an abstract idea of “presenting learning of function to the driver” which falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of a “computer-readable non-transitory storage”, ”microcomputer”, and “processor” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “providing a video education content” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “computer-readable non-transitory storage” (as described in para. [0086]), ”microcomputer” (as described in para. [0017]), and “processor” (as described in para. [0086]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2-11 are dependent from claim 1, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitation of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claim 3, 5-8, and 9 clarify the types of information output by the function learning presentation unit, and the limitations of claims 4 clarify the types of information output by the learning determination result notification unit. As such, these claims merely recites the type of data output and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on this claim.
The limitations of claim 2, 4, and 10 clarify the types of information acquired by the driving proficient acquisition unit, learning status acquisition unit, and driving operation history acquisition unit respectively. As such, these claims merely recite the type of data input and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2-11 recite abstract idea without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12).
Regarding claim 1, Mason et al. teaches:
An in-vehicle system comprising: a driving proficiency acquisition unit acquiring a driving proficiency level of a driver (Para. [0020], para. [0052]-[0053], and fig. 4 show that the system determines a driving capacity metric via a measurement module 220 which is a reflection of an operator’s driving capabilities, and may be acquired from information collected from a number of sensors); a driving proficiency determination unit determining the driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0052], para. [0027], and fig. 4 show that the system utilizes a driving capacity to determine a proficiency level of a driver via an evaluation module 240); and a function learning presentation unit presenting learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0015], para. [0028], and para. [0050] show that the system may be used as a teaching tool, which unlocks new vehicle system capabilities as the operator demonstrates competence in new scenarios, i.e. presenting functions in a stepwise manner).
Regarding claim 2, Mason et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the driving proficiency acquisition unit acquires, as the driving proficiency level of the driver, vehicle data (Para. [0022] shows that the driving capacity metric may factor in vehicle data such as vehicle velocity, acceleration, surging, and distance from obstacles) and driving ability data of the driver (Para. [0021] shows that the driving capacity metric may factor in driving ability data of the driver such as facial expressions, gaze, and attentiveness).
Regarding claim 6, Mason et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a function suppression unit suppressing the functions when a predetermined period of time is elapsed from last driving operation of the driver, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents suppression of the functions to the driver when the functions are suppressed by the function suppression unit (Para. [0054] and para. [0015], shows that when an operator proficiency may change and that drivers that experience a negative change in proficiency may lose access to certain vehicle systems; para. [0032] further shows that time elapsed as well as time of day may be considered when modulating function access to the driver).
Regarding claim 7, Mason et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a function suppression unit suppressing the functions when the driving proficiency level of the driver decreases to a reference level, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents suppression of the functions to the driver when the functions are suppressed by the function suppression unit (Para. [0054] and para. [0015], shows that when an operator proficiency may change and that drivers that experience a negative change in proficiency may lose access to certain vehicle systems; para. [0024], para. [0028], and para. [0031] further shows that vehicle systems are tiered and that there are certain proficiency levels, i.e. reference levels, required to access each tier of system features).
Regarding claim 12, Mason et al. teaches:
A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions to be executed by at least one processor of an in-vehicle system for presenting functions to be learned by a driver of a vehicle, the instructions of the computer program comprising: acquiring a driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0020], para. [0052]-[0053], and fig. 4 show that the system determines a driving capacity metric via a measurement module 220 which is a reflection of an operator’s driving capabilities, and may be acquired from information collected from a number of sensors); determining the driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0052], para. [0027], and fig. 4 show that the system utilizes a driving capacity to determine a proficiency level of a driver via an evaluation module 240); and presenting learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0015], para. [0028], and para. [0050] show that the system may be used as a teaching tool, which unlocks new vehicle system capabilities as the operator demonstrates competence in new scenarios, i.e. presenting functions in a stepwise manner).
Regarding claim 13, it is a mirrored claim to claim 12 and rejected in like manner.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12) in view of Yako et al. (Document ID US 10061315 B2; 2018-08-28).
Regarding claim 3, Mason et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents the learning of functions to the driver in stepwise manner under a condition that a safety of driving operation is secured.
Yako et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents the learning of functions to the driver (Col. 3, lines 21-49 show that the system may provide the user a tutorial on how to use a certain feature of the vehicle) in stepwise manner under a condition that a safety of driving operation is secured (Col. 4, lines 31-47 show that the user may need to satisfy a safety condition, i.e. the vehicle being stopped or parked, in order to view a tutorial).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Yako et al., regarding the provision of a tutorial regarding a vehicle feature in a safe location, to the similar device of Mason et al., a system that regulates user access to vehicle features as their skills progress (para. [0015] and [0038]), to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Yako et al. with the similar device of Mason et al. as ensuring that an operator’s vehicle is stopped or in park would ensure that the operator can both focus on the video and that the operator does not pose a danger to other vehicles on the road when watching the vehicle.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12) in view of Zweig et al. (Document ID US 20200406903 A1; 2020-12-31).
Regarding claim 4, Mason et al. fails to explicitly teach
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a learning status acquisition unit acquiring a learning status of one of the functions; a learning status determination unit determining the learning status of one of the functions; and a learning determination result notification unit notifying a determination result of the learning status of one of the functions.
Zweig et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a learning status acquisition unit acquiring a learning status of one of the functions (Para. [0033] shows that the system collects a data set that reflects a user’s knowledge of a given vehicle feature, i.e. a learning status of a function); a learning status determination unit determining the learning status of one of the functions (Para. [0034] shows that the aforementioned data set is used to determine a user’s knowledge level on a given vehicle feature); and a learning determination result notification unit notifying a determination result of the learning status of one of the functions (Para. [0036]-[0039] shows that the determined learning status, i.e. the user’s knowledge level, are used when determining what presentation features are appropriate; Para. [0038], para. [0040], and para. [0051] show that the user is notified of the determination result, i.e. the presentation features determined to be appropriate, by the display of the presentation to the user).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Zweig et al., regarding the provision of tutorials that are appropriate to the user’s current knowledge base, to the similar device of Mason et al., a system that regulates user access to vehicle features as their skills progress (para. [0015] and [0038]), to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Zweig et al. with the similar device of Mason et al. as utilization of this technique ensures that the operator is provided with information that is neither too simple nor too complex.
Regarding claim 8, Mason et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit determines whether the learning of functions is possible according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level, and in response to determining that the learning of functions is possible, the function learning presentation unit presents pre-learning of the functions to the driver.
Zweig et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit determines whether the learning of functions is possible according to a determination result of the driving proficiency level (Para. [0003] and para. [0024] show that the user is presented with features of which the operator was not aware, i.e. features the operator could possibly learn which have been determined based off of the user’s driving proficiency level) , and in response to determining that the learning of functions is possible, the function learning presentation unit presents pre-learning of the functions to the driver (Para. [0040]-[0041] show that the system will additionally analyze what is around the vehicle and use this to present the user with a feature that could then be used in the identified situation, i.e. pre-learning).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Zweig et al., regarding the provision new material when situations occur in which the new material can be applied, to the similar device of Mason et al., a system that regulates user access to vehicle features as their skills progress (para. [0015] and [0038]), to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Zweig et al. with the similar device of Mason et al. as the utilization of this technique ensures that the operator is presented new/unknown information and that the operator may then shortly apply the new information, which would aid in the operator’s retention and future engagement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12) in view of Ikeda et al. (Document ID US 20200307643 A1; 2020-10-01).
Regarding claim 5, Mason et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents learning of next one of the functions to the driver when a learning status of one of the functions is determined to reach a predetermined level.
Ikeda et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents learning of next one of the functions to the driver when a learning status of one of the functions is determined to reach a predetermined level (Para. [0025] and fig. 2 show that once the user is presented with a second advanced tutorial/training on a feature once the user has received and completed a first tutorial/training, i.e. a learning status of a function as reached a predetermined level).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Ikeda et al., regarding the provision of an advanced tutorial regarding a vehicle feature once a basic tutorial has been completed, to the similar device of Mason et al., a system that regulates user access to vehicle features as their skills progress (para. [0015] and [0038]), to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Ikeda et al. with the similar device of Mason et al. as utilization of this technique ensures that the operator is equipped with the knowledge required to understand and retain information that they may be presented with in an advanced tutorial.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12) in view of Zweig et al. (Document ID US 20200406903 A1; 2020-12-31) and in further view of Ikeda et al. (Document ID US 20200307643 A1; 2020-10-01).
Regarding claim 9, Mason et al. in view of Zweig et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 8, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents the pre-learning of the functions to the driver using simulation during driving operation.
Ikeda et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 8, wherein the function learning presentation unit presents the pre-learning of the functions to the driver using simulation during driving operation (Para. [0025] and figure 9 show that a tutorial may include a visual simulation of the car driving).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Ikeda et al., regarding the provision of tutorial that simulate the driver’s point of view, to the similar device of Zweig et al., a system that provides the user with tutorials regarding a vehicle’s features, to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Ikeda et al. with the similar device of Zweig et al. as utilization of this technique would better give the operator and idea of what they would see when utilizing the vehicle’s features.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (Document ID US 20190278263 A1; 2019-09-12) in view of Fields et al. (Document ID US 10373523 B1; 2019-08-06).
Regarding claim 10, Mason et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a driving operation history acquisition unit acquiring driving operation history of another driver; a vehicle setting information acquisition unit acquiring vehicle setting information of another driver from the acquired driving operation history of another driver; and a vehicle setting information changing unit changing vehicle setting information of the driver in accordance with the vehicle setting information of another driver.
Fields et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 1, further comprising a driving operation history acquisition unit acquiring driving operation history of another driver (Col. 20, lines 4-27 show that the system may identify a user and pull up that user’s profile which may include the user’s past interactions with the vehicle, i.e. driving operation history); a vehicle setting information acquisition unit acquiring vehicle setting information of another driver from the acquired driving operation history of another driver (Col. 20, lines 4-27 show that the user’s profile which may also include defaults settings used by the operator); and a vehicle setting information changing unit changing vehicle setting information of the driver in accordance with the vehicle setting information of another driver (Col. 47, lines 28-41 further shows that loaded/selected settings may be applied to the vehicle).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Fields et al., regarding the utilization of user profiles, to the similar device of Mason et al., a system that regulates user access to vehicle features as their skills progress (para. [0015] and [0038]), to yield the predictable result of teaching a vehicle’s operators about its various features. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Ikeda et al. with the similar device of Mason et al. as utilization of this would better allow the system to differentiate between the progress made by different operators that happen to be using the same vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Mason et al. teaches:
The in-vehicle system according to claim 10, wherein the vehicle setting information changing unit changes the vehicle setting information of the driver according to at least one of (i) the driving proficiency level of the driver (Para. [0024], para. [0028], and para. [0031] further shows that vehicle systems are tiered and that there are certain proficiency levels required to access each tier of system features, i.e. certain setting may only be available to users with a certain proficiency level), (ii) preference of the driver, or (iii) viewpoint direction of the driver.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102
Claims 3-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715