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.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching all the claims is not a serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the limitations in independent claim 15 is not found in claims 1 or 8. Further, the limitations of detecting an input from an occupant of the vehicle; determining whether the occupant is a driver of the vehicle or a non-driver occupant of the vehicle; determining whether the input is a request for an improper action in response to a determination that the occupant is the non-driver occupant, are not included in independent claims 1 and 8.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Melson et al. USPAP 2018/0354433.
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).
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.
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 Oh et al. USPAP 2019/0094038.
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 approval from the driver, then Oh discloses approval from the driver (p’s 369-377; fig’s 9, 15-16). 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 approval from the driver such as that taught by Oh in order to have the function carried out when it is approved by the first passenger (the first passenger being the driver (p369), but not carried out when rejected (Oh, p373).
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
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