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 .
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
P = paragraph; e.g. p5 = paragraph 5.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Claims 15-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, the new reference, Ricci, discloses both risk of distraction of the driver and exposing the non-driver (passenger) to inappropriate content, even though the reference needs to only disclose one of the above due to the new amendment having an “or” clause.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melson et al. USPAP 2018/0354433, and further in view of Ricci et al. USPAP 2014/0310739.
As per claims 1 and 8, Melson discloses a vehicle/method comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon; and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: detecting an input from a non-driver occupant of the vehicle; determining whether the input is a request for an improper action; notifying the driver of the request in response to a determination that the input is the request for an improper action (p’s 37, 41, 33; figure 4); and
figure 4 of Melson discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
880
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
executing the improper action in response to receiving approval from the driver following the notifying of the driver (p’s 38, 37; figure 4, claim 1).
Melson discloses all the limitations of the invention, however, arguendo, if Melson is or might be interpreted such that it might not explicitly disclose wherein the improper action comprises at least one of an action that increases a risk of distraction to the driver or an action that exposes the non-driver occupant to inappropriate content, then Ricci discloses wherein the improper action comprises at least one of an action that increases a risk of distraction to the driver (p’s 751, 240, 756, 758, 760, 779, 416) or an action that exposes the non-driver occupant to inappropriate content (p’s 347, 749; claim 6; figure 22). If this interpretation is taken, then it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Melson to include wherein the improper action comprises at least one of an action that increases a risk of distraction to the driver or an action that exposes the non-driver occupant to inappropriate content such as that taught by Ricci in order to have an adult user (e.g., a user with an age of 18 years old and/or over, etc.) which may be located in an area of a vehicle 104, such as a rear passenger area. Continuing this example a child user (e.g., a user with an age of 17 years old and/or less, etc.) may be located in the same, or close, area. In this example, the user account information in the profile data 252 associated with both the adult user and the child user may be used by the vehicle 104 in determining whether content is appropriate for the area given the age of the child user. For instance, a graphic movie containing violence (e.g., a movie associated with a mature rating, such as a Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating of "R," "NC-17," etc.) may be suitable to present to a display device associated with the adult user but may not be acceptable to present to the display device if a 12-year old child user may see and/or hear the content of the movie (Ricci, p347).
Further, Ricci discloses via p751 and figure 22:
[0751] Other user account restrictions can be applied by the media server before the content is passed by the media server to the user. For example, when the user is driving the vehicle video can be removed automatically from the content to avoid distracting the driver so that only the audio channel accompanying the video channel is provided to the user. In another example and in response to determining that the requesting user or user is driving the vehicle rather than being a (non-driving) passenger, screen magnification can be applied automatically to the visual content to assist the driver of the vehicle; that is, the user is the driver and larger font is easier to see than smaller font. In other examples, the visual content, in response to determining that the requesting user or user is driving the vehicle rather than being a (non-driving) passenger, is presented or rendered automatically in a large font and/or icon size (e.g., without changing screen resolution) compared to the font and/or icon size for the content displayed to a (non-driving) passenger to reduce driver distraction. In yet another example, the media server 2112 determines that the user is driving the car rather than being a (non-driving) passenger and enables or disables automatically removal of all unnecessary animations from the content to be displayed. In yet another example, the media server 2112 determines that the user is driving the car rather than being a (non-driving) passenger and enables automatic removal of background images from, while leaving one or more displayed foreground images in, the content to be displayed. In yet another example, the media server 2112 determines that the user is driving the car rather than being a (non-driving) passenger and automatically enables or renders high contrast (e.g., between text and background colors) to make the displayed content more visible to the user. The feature and/or setting and/or filters could be applied to the displayed content only when the vehicle is in motion or in forward or reverse gear and not parked even when the user is the driver.
PNG
media_image2.png
956
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph 37 of Melson discloses:
[0037] If, at 410, the mobile device is being operated by a passenger, the IVI control system asks 412 for approval of the IVI control request from the mobile device. In some embodiments, the driver is asked for approval using an audible or visual message or notification. For example, an audible message may ask the driver to approve a proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the audible message by speaking a confirmation response, such as “Yes” or “Approved.” Alternatively, a visual message may be displayed on a display screen of the IVI system requesting the driver's approval of the proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the visual message by touching an “Approve” or “OK” button on the display screen of the IVI system or speaking an audible confirmation response.
As per claims 2 and 9, Melson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for:
determine whether the improper action is pre-authorized; and
notifying the driver of the request is further in response to a determination that the improper request is not preauthorized (p’s 37, 41, 33, 38; claim 1; figure 4) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via p41:
[0041] In a particular example, a passenger in a moving vehicle may want to enter an address associated with a desired destination into the vehicle's IVI system. The vehicle is moving at a significant speed, so the driver is not permitted to access the IVI system to enter the address. The passenger uses a mobile device with an app that communicates with the IVI system. Using the app on the mobile device, the user enters the desired destination address into a navigation portion of the app and submits the proposed address to the IVI system. The IVI system detects that the vehicle is in motion and determines that the requested change in the IVI system was received from a mobile device operated by a passenger. Thus, the IVI system requests approval of the change from the driver of the vehicle, as discussed herein. If the driver approves the change, the IVI system provides the destination address to a navigation portion of the IVI system such that the navigation portion can determine a route to the destination address. A similar approach is used for making other changes to the IVI system, such as sound system changes, climate control changes, entertainment system changes, communication changes, and the like.
As per claims 3 and 10, Melson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for: receiving approval from the driver of the request for the improper action (figure 4; p’s 37, 41, 33, 38; claim 1) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via paragraph 37:
[0037] If, at 410, the mobile device is being operated by a passenger, the IVI control system asks 412 for approval of the IVI control request from the mobile device. In some embodiments, the driver is asked for approval using an audible or visual message or notification. For example, an audible message may ask the driver to approve a proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the audible message by speaking a confirmation response, such as “Yes” or “Approved.” Alternatively, a visual message may be displayed on a display screen of the IVI system requesting the driver's approval of the proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the visual message by touching an “Approve” or “OK” button on the display screen of the IVI system or speaking an audible confirmation response.
As per claims 4 and 11, Melson discloses wherein the receiving approval from the driver comprises receiving approval by actuation of a touch screen, actuation of an element on a steering wheel, actuation of an element on a console, or detecting of a voice command (claim 1; figure 4; p’s 37, 41, 33, 38) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via paragraph 37:
[0037] If, at 410, the mobile device is being operated by a passenger, the IVI control system asks 412 for approval of the IVI control request from the mobile device. In some embodiments, the driver is asked for approval using an audible or visual message or notification. For example, an audible message may ask the driver to approve a proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the audible message by speaking a confirmation response, such as “Yes” or “Approved.” Alternatively, a visual message may be displayed on a display screen of the IVI system requesting the driver's approval of the proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the visual message by touching an “Approve” or “OK” button on the display screen of the IVI system or speaking an audible confirmation response.
As per claims 5 and 12, Melson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instruction for notifying the driver using at least one of an audio notification or a visual notification (p’s 33, 38; claim 1; figure 4; p’s 37, 41) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via paragraph 37:
[0037] If, at 410, the mobile device is being operated by a passenger, the IVI control system asks 412 for approval of the IVI control request from the mobile device. In some embodiments, the driver is asked for approval using an audible or visual message or notification. For example, an audible message may ask the driver to approve a proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the audible message by speaking a confirmation response, such as “Yes” or “Approved.” Alternatively, a visual message may be displayed on a display screen of the IVI system requesting the driver's approval of the proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the visual message by touching an “Approve” or “OK” button on the display screen of the IVI system or speaking an audible confirmation response.
As per claims 6 and 13, Melson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for notifying the driver by communicating a notification to a mobile device viewable by the driver (figure 4; p’s 33, 38; claim 1; p’s 37, 41) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via paragraph 37:
[0037] If, at 410, the mobile device is being operated by a passenger, the IVI control system asks 412 for approval of the IVI control request from the mobile device. In some embodiments, the driver is asked for approval using an audible or visual message or notification. For example, an audible message may ask the driver to approve a proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the audible message by speaking a confirmation response, such as “Yes” or “Approved.” Alternatively, a visual message may be displayed on a display screen of the IVI system requesting the driver's approval of the proposed change to the vehicle's IVI system. The driver may respond to the visual message by touching an “Approve” or “OK” button on the display screen of the IVI system or speaking an audible confirmation response.
As per claims 7 and 14, Melson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for locking a device associated with the improper action in response to a failure of the driver to approve the improper action (p’s 37, 41; figure 4; p’s 33, 38; claim 1) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Melson discloses via p38:
[0038] If, at 414, the driver does not approve the IVI control request from the mobile device, method 400 does not allow 418 the mobile device to control the IVI system. However, if the driver approves, at 414, the IVI control request from the mobile device, the mobile device is allowed to control the IVI system by mirroring 416 the IVI display screen on the mobile device. For example, the current display on the IVI system may be mirrored (i.e., copied) on the mobile device display such that a user of the mobile device can interact with the IVI system using the mirrored data on the mobile device display. When the user presses a button on the mirrored display, a corresponding input is communicated to the IVI system for implementation by the IVI system. As discussed herein, changes implemented using the mobile device may require driver approval. In that situation, the IVI system may receive the proposed changes from the mobile device, but delay implementing the changes until the driver has approved the proposed changes, as discussed herein.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kume et al. (U.S. patent application publication 2024/0246568) discloses a
vehicle device or a vehicle estimation method estimating whether the driver is in an abnormal state different from a sleeping state by using a plurality of types of sensors, determines whether the vehicle is in a sleep-permitted automated driving or a sleep-unpermitted driving. When determining that the vehicle is in the sleep-unpermitted driving, the device or the method estimates whether the driver is in the abnormal state by using the plurality of types of the sensors. When determining that the vehicle is in the sleep-permitted automated driving, the device or the method reduces the plurality of types for estimation.
Nishida et al. (U.S. patent application publication 2020/0239015) discloses a
changing operation assisting apparatus including a driving assistance control section, an operation section, and an information providing section. The driving assistance control section stores set states regarding driving assistance functions of a vehicle and provides the functions in accordance with the set sates. The set state includes a request state of the function. The operation section is used for changing the set state. The information providing section provides information regarding the set state to a driver of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHRANG BADII whose telephone number is 571-272-6879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop Amendment
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to (571)273-8300
Hand delivered responses should be brought to
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 3600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-3600.
/Behrang Badii/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights