DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution Reopened
2. As noted in the remarks filed 12 March 2026, newly introduced claims 21-23 were not addressed in the previous office action. Since the claims were not rejected properly, the final rejection was premature and is hereby withdrawn (see MPEP 706.07(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim listing submitted 09 December 2025 was amended to include that the “at least one processor based digital human”, whose function previously established was to interact with the user and configure the vehicle, now serves to detect an identifier of at least one user and obtain preferences based on the identifier.
In the specification, the “at least one processor based digital human” component responsible for the automatically detecting portion of the claim is clearly delineated from the identically claimed “at least one processor based digital human” in the obtaining, interacting, and automatically configuring portions of the claims; the former and latter group are separate devices. However, within the scope of the claim, they are all presented as identical.
For purposes of examination, the “digital human” responsible for the automatic detecting will be interpreted as any of the sensing devices listed in the published specification at 0024. The subsequent “at least one processor based digital human” devices will be examined to their corresponding structure in the specification, i.e. displayed human avatar and dialog for interaction, and processing via machine learning and the like.
All claims descendent therefrom are rejected under identical grounds due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US 2015/0210287), and further in view of Thurimella (US 2020/0079215).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Penilla discloses a method, associated apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium (system, method, and associated architecture for providing vehicle access and configuring vehicle according to identified user preferences; Penilla at title, abstract), comprising:
Automatically detecting an identifier of at least one user in a vehicle, wherein the identifier of the at least one user is automatically detected based at least in part on one or more of obtained biometrics of the at least one user (biometric information of user sensed to identify authorized user; Penilla at 0018, 0080, 0122) and a proximity of at least one device of the at least one user (user’s mobile device within acceptable vehicle proximity; Penilla at 0022, 0033, 0157).
Obtaining one or more stored preferences of the at least one user using the identifier of the at least one user, wherein the one or more stored preferences of the at least one user are obtained from at least one storage device that is remote from the vehicle (stored preferences of identified, authorized user obtained from cloud or key fob; Penilla at 0009, 0010, 0012, 0019), wherein the one or more stored preferences of the at least one user are stored in one or more persistent slots (non-volatile memory; Penilla at 0131).
Automatically configuring the vehicle, using the obtained one or more stored preferences of the at least one user (vehicle is configured to customized settings of user; Penilla at 0012, 0019), wherein the at least one user interacts to update the at least one of the one or more stored preferences of the at least one user, wherein the at least one updated preference is automatically stored in one or more persistent slots (updated preferences automatically stored externally; Penilla at 0012, 0043, 0102).
Wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor (method is executed by at least one processor; Penilla at abstract, 0031, 0112, 0310).
While Penilla does use an equivalent “at least one processor based digital human” for automatically detecting via sensed biometrics, obtaining one or more stored preferences, and automatically configuring the vehicle as well as machine learning for update of preferences (e.g. Penilla at 0080), Penilla is silent as to using at least one processor-based digital human to interact with the user.
Thurimella, in a similar invention, implements a processor based (ECU 17; Thurimella at 0025, 0030) digital human to interface with the driver using natural language processing and neural processing to learn language preferences to influence vehicle control (Thurimella at 0002, 0012-0015, 0030).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base invention of Penilla with the interface of Thurimella. Doing so would allow for altering the driver preferences in an intuitive, streamlined fashion.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Penilla discloses automatically detecting one or more of the at least one user ending a session and the at least one user exiting the vehicle (detecting when user session is over and user has left the vehicle; Penilla at 0026, 0044, 0108).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Penilla discloses wherein the at least one user interacted with the vehicle to update at least one preference of the at least one user during the session and wherein the at least one updated preference is stored using the identifier of the at least one user in response to the detecting the one or more of the at least one user ending the session and the at least one user exiting the vehicle (end of session feedback user preferences updated; Penilla at 0102, 0104, 0111).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Penilla discloses further comprising restoring the vehicle to a designated set of default settings in response to the detecting the one or more of the at least one user ending the session and the at least one user exiting the vehicle (standard/starting setting re-established after user session is complete and user has left the vehicle; Penilla at 0026, 0044).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 21, Penilla discloses further comprising authenticating the at least one user prior to the automatically configuring the vehicle (authentication before vehicle is used and configured with user preferences; Penilla at 0147).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Penilla discloses wherein the at least one device of the at least one user comprises one or more of a mobile device and an electronic key of the vehicle associated with the at least one user (user mobile device and key fob; Penilla at 0106, 0300).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Penilla discloses wherein the one or more persistent slots of the conversation system further comprise information characterizing at least one previous interaction between the at least one user and the at least one processor-based digital human. (identified users settings learned and updated via dialog; Penilla at 0071, 0080).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s contention (see pages 7-8 filed 12 March 2026) with respect to the rejection of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant has contended that Penilla, alone or in combination with Thurimella, does not teach wherein the one or more stored preferences of the at least one user are stored in one or more persistent slots of a conversation system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; “persistent slots”, as broadest reasonably interpreted, is equivalent to the non-volatile memory as disclosed in Penilla at 0131-0132 wherein the stored preferences of the user are saved locally or on a server in non-volatile storage.
The term “conversation system”, as broadest reasonably interpreted, includes data exchange between two entities. Penilla at 0009, 0010, 0122, 0147, 0169 discloses intercommunication between the local vehicle components, voice interactions with the users, or vehicle to server to retrieve persistently stored preferences in response to driver identification.
6. Applicant has contended that Penilla, alone or in combination with Thurimella, does not teach wherein at least one user interacts with the at least one processor based digital human, to update at least one of the one or more stored preferences of the at least one user, and wherein the at least one updated preference is automatically stored in one or more persistent slots of the conversation system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; Penilla at 0102, 0104 discloses that the user preferences may be learned over time, updated manually via voice interaction with the driver, then stored on persistent memory.
While Penilla does disclose machine learning (e.g. Penilla at 0107) to update user preference choices, Penilla does not explicitly disclose a processor-based digital human in the conversation system. Thurimella, in a similar invention, implements a processor based (ECU 17; Thurimella at 0025, 0030) digital human to interface via conversation with the driver using natural language processing, driver identification (specific user personalized interactions; Thurimella at 0042), and to learn language preferences influence vehicle control (Thurimella at 0002, 0012-0015, 0030).
Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds/rationales and applicable prior art for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
16 April 2026
Prosecution Insights