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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended, and claims 21-23 are added.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US20140240089A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 20140088793 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a shared space comprising:
a processor ([0014] and [0189]);
and a memory that stores computer-executable instructions and a customization client that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0014] and [0189]) comprising:
obtaining identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0151-0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information is corresponding to a guest/known driver, i.e. primary user, or a passenger),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0144], user is identified as a passenger when they connect with transceiver 54; [0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are a passenger connecting with wireless transceiver 54),
comparing the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0155], settings of the guest driver and passenger are compared for conflicts);
and instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user ([0155, passenger settings are determined to conflict), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group, wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group, and wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Morgan teaches:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0056], when conflicts exist between user vehicle settings, priority identifiers of each user vehicle configuration settings are assessed)
wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], user vehicle configuration settings that contain exclusion priority identifiers, such as a parent’s identifier, are able to override a primary user’s preference of another priority identifier, such as a child’s identifier),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0056-0057]),
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], “That is, the user vehicle configuration settings 170, or components thereof, having the highest (or lowest) priority identifier may be used in place of other user vehicle configuration settings,” which allows a parent’s preferences to override beyond the setting of a child).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chang with the priority identifier values of Morgan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Morgan, of allowing certain user’s preferences to override the preferences of another user, thus ensuring a resolution of “any priority conflicts between different user vehicle configuration settings” in a manner advantageous to the vehicle’s owner ([0056]). For example, it is envisioned through the teachings of Chang that an owner of a vehicle may designate a teenager as a guest driver of a vehicle. Modifying Chang with the teachings of Morgan allows the owner to also designate certain passengers, such as parents, as excluded users comprising a priority identifier higher than that of the teenage driver. This advantageously ensures that users designated by the owner retain control over the preferences and settings of the vehicle when it is desired that their settings be applied over the settings of a primary user, i.e. guest driver.
Regarding claim 2, Chang teaches: in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0139] and [0153-0155], guess user/driver settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0155], passenger settings that do not exceed the guest driver’s settings are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 5, Chang teaches:
wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0155-0156]), passenger settings that are “separate” from that of the driver are selectively applied).
Regarding claim 6, Chang teaches:
wherein the customization service system comprises a profile aggregator that generates the user profile based on user data received from a plurality of data sources ([0220-0221], the user data for a user’s personal settings as received in order to implement the invention is received from the storage of the system itself and the smartphone of the user).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a shared space comprising a processor executing a customization client, identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, by the shared space, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0151-0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information is corresponding to a guest/known driver, i.e. primary user, or a passenger),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving, by the shared space, a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0144], user is identified as a passenger when they connect with transceiver 54; [0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are a passenger connecting with wireless transceiver 54),
comparing, by the shared space, the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0155], settings of the guest driver and passenger are compared for conflicts);
and instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user ([0155, passenger settings are determined to conflict), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group, wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group, and wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Morgan teaches:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0056], when conflicts exist between user vehicle settings, priority identifiers of each user vehicle configuration settings are assessed)
wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], user vehicle configuration settings that contain exclusion priority identifiers, such as a parent’s identifier, are able to override a primary user’s preference of another priority identifier, such as a child’s identifier),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0056-0057]),
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], “That is, the user vehicle configuration settings 170, or components thereof, having the highest (or lowest) priority identifier may be used in place of other user vehicle configuration settings,” which allows a parent’s preferences to override beyond the setting of a child).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chang with the priority identifier values of Morgan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Morgan, of allowing certain user’s preferences to override the preferences of another user, thus ensuring a resolution of “any priority conflicts between different user vehicle configuration settings” in a manner advantageous to the vehicle’s owner ([0056]). For example, it is envisioned through the teachings of Chang that an owner of a vehicle may designate a teenager as a guest driver of a vehicle. Modifying Chang with the teachings of Morgan allows the owner to also designate certain passengers, such as parents, as excluded users comprising a priority identifier higher than that of the teenage driver. This advantageously ensures that users designated by the owner retain control over the preferences and settings of the vehicle when it is desired that their settings be applied over the settings of a primary user, i.e. guest driver.
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches:
in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0139] and [0153-0155], guess user/driver settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0155], passenger settings that do not exceed the guest driver’s settings are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 12, Chang teaches:
wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0155-0156]), passenger settings that are “separate” from that of the driver are selectively applied).
Regarding claim 13, Chang teaches:
wherein the customization service system comprises a profile aggregator that generates the user profile based on user data received from a plurality of data sources ([0220-0221], the user data for a user’s personal settings as received in order to implement the invention is received from the storage of the system itself and the smartphone of the user).
Regarding claim 15, Chang teaches a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions comprising a customization client stored thereon that, when executed by a processor of a shared space, cause the processor to perform operations ([0014] and [0189]) comprising:
obtaining identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0151-0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information is corresponding to a guest/known driver, i.e. primary user, or a passenger),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0144], user is identified as a passenger when they connect with transceiver 54; [0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are a passenger connecting with wireless transceiver 54),
comparing the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0155], settings of the guest driver and passenger are compared for conflicts);
and instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user ([0155, passenger settings are determined to conflict), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group, wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group, and wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Morgan teaches:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile associated with the user exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile associated with the primary user, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0056], when conflicts exist between user vehicle settings, priority identifiers of each user vehicle configuration settings are assessed)
wherein members of the user exception group are allowed to override settings of components of the shared space set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], user vehicle configuration settings that contain exclusion priority identifiers, such as a parent’s identifier, are able to override a primary user’s preference of another priority identifier, such as a child’s identifier),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0056-0057]),
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile comprises adjusting at least the component beyond the setting of the component set forth by the primary user profile of the primary user ([0056], “That is, the user vehicle configuration settings 170, or components thereof, having the highest (or lowest) priority identifier may be used in place of other user vehicle configuration settings,” which allows a parent’s preferences to override beyond the setting of a child).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chang with the priority identifier values of Morgan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Morgan, of allowing certain user’s preferences to override the preferences of another user, thus ensuring a resolution of “any priority conflicts between different user vehicle configuration settings” in a manner advantageous to the vehicle’s owner ([0056]). For example, it is envisioned through the teachings of Chang that an owner of a vehicle may designate a teenager as a guest driver of a vehicle. Modifying Chang with the teachings of Morgan allows the owner to also designate certain passengers, such as parents, as excluded users comprising a priority identifier higher than that of the teenage driver. This advantageously ensures that users designated by the owner retain control over the preferences and settings of the vehicle when it is desired that their settings be applied over the settings of a primary user, i.e. guest driver.
Regarding claim 16, Chang teaches: in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0139] and [0153-0155], guess user/driver settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, Chang teaches:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0155], passenger settings that do not exceed the guest driver’s settings are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 19, Chang teaches:
wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0155-0156]), passenger settings that are “separate” from that of the driver are selectively applied).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Morgan as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Vardharajan (US 20200062269 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the prior combination does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations that comprise:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of the prior combination to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Note that as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings in accordance with the owner preferences while the guest driver is operating the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile when other passengers leave as the guest driver remains in operation of the vehicle.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the preferences of the vehicle are customized according to the desire of the user(s) remaining in the vehicle, which results in the better accommodation of “vehicle ride preferences of multiple users (e.g., riders) of the vehicle” as taught by Vardharajan ([0043]).
Regarding claim 14, the prior combination does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations that comprise:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of the prior combination to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Note that as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings in accordance with the owner preferences while the guest driver is operating the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile when other passengers leave as the guest driver remains in operation of the vehicle.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the preferences of the vehicle are customized according to the desire of the user(s) remaining in the vehicle, which results in the better accommodation of “vehicle ride preferences of multiple users (e.g., riders) of the vehicle” as taught by Vardharajan ([0043]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior combination does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations that comprise:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of the prior combination to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Note that as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings in accordance with the owner preferences while the guest driver is operating the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile when other passengers leave as the guest driver remains in operation of the vehicle.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the preferences of the vehicle are customized according to the desire of the user(s) remaining in the vehicle, which results in the better accommodation of “vehicle ride preferences of multiple users (e.g., riders) of the vehicle” as taught by Vardharajan ([0043]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Morgan as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Penilla et al. (US 2018024725 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the prior combination does not teach wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla teaches:
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user ([0134], roles can be assigned to children and other adults; [0012], [0125], [0284-0285], certain settings for the vehicle, such as “master fan speed”, “master temperature”, and other settings as shown in Figs. 4-5 are either granted or locked based on the privileges granted to the user’s access).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla. This would allow users of a certain priority identifier, such as parents or other adults, to have access to restricted settings and functions that are otherwise not available to the guest driver, which was been envisioned as a teenage/child driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Penilla, to allow access to certain settings and functions of the vehicle to certain users based on an administrator’s desire ([0125] and [0156-0157]) while restricting some settings and function for other users, thus allowing more control over the functionality and permissions afforded to child/teenage drivers ([0136]).
Regarding claim 22, the prior combination does not teach wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla teaches:
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user ([0134], roles can be assigned to children and other adults; [0012], [0125], [0284-0285], certain settings for the vehicle, such as “master fan speed”, “master temperature”, and other settings as shown in Figs. 4-5 are either granted or locked based on the privileges granted to the user’s access).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla. This would allow users of a certain priority identifier, such as parents or other adults, to have access to restricted settings and functions that are otherwise not available to the guest driver, which was been envisioned as a teenage/child driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Penilla, to allow access to certain settings and functions of the vehicle to certain users based on an administrator’s desire ([0125] and [0156-0157]) while restricting some settings and function for other users, thus allowing more control over the functionality and permissions afforded to, for example, child/teenage drivers ([0136]).
Regarding claim 23, the prior combination does not teach wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla teaches:
wherein adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile further comprises extending a functionality of the shared space beyond the functionality of the shared space provided to the primary user ([0134], roles can be assigned to children and other adults; [0012], [0125], [0284-0285], certain settings for the vehicle, such as “master fan speed”, “master temperature”, and other settings as shown in Figs. 4-5 are either granted or locked based on the privileges granted to the user’s access).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla. This would allow users of a certain priority identifier, such as parents or other adults, to have access to restricted settings and functions that are otherwise not available to the guest driver, which was been envisioned as a teenage/child driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Penilla based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Penilla, to allow access to certain settings and functions of the vehicle to certain users based on an administrator’s desire ([0125] and [0156-0157]) while restricting some settings and function for other users, thus allowing more control over the functionality and permissions afforded to, for example, child/teenage drivers ([0136]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments to the independent claims 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 as Morgan is presently relied upon for said teachings.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chan et al. (US 20230106867 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 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 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights