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 .
Claim status
2. In response to the amendments filed 04/02/2026, no claims were amended, canceled and/or added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimm et al. (Grimm; US 2019/0049262).
For claim 1, Grimm discloses a method, comprising:
determining a drive mode of a vehicle [E.g. 0008: Vehicle data may be composed of the operating states for various vehicle systems of the motor vehicle during the current trip, such as stability control active/inactive, GPS available/unavailable, adaptive cruise control (ACC) active/inactive, etc. Driver data may be composed of the driver-specific operating characteristics for various driving variables of the driver during the current trip, such as defensive or aggressive driver, tendency to speed and/or tailgate, number of driving violations, etc. Driver data may also include contextual data such as an indication of whether or not the current trip is on or off commute, in a familiar or an unfamiliar location, and/or a frequent or infrequent trip type. The EUI may optionally display or otherwise output an indication of whether the vehicle's current trip is predicted to be early, on time, or late based on a comparison between the predicted trip duration, which is based on driver, vehicle and operational data, and historical trip duration data received from the VPS system, which is based on participatory vehicle sensed information, 0020: In a characterization of time scenario, the system may correlate current time (trip duration) to: previous trips to determine typical start and end times; VPS crowd-sensed traffic and environment to determine timeliness along route; crowd-sensed historical trip data, e.g., to determine if the driver on the current trip will likely be “running early” or will be “on time” or may be “running late,” under various scenarios. Driver presentation and vehicle calibration can be adapted based on detection of extra time (Time Comfort) or time pressure (Time Anxiety). With these VPS data-based techniques, for example, there are opportunities for implementing “Time Comfort” scenarios, e.g., where the system may suggest an opportunistic errand or refueling stop (“You have plenty of time!” messaging), as well as opportunities for implementing “Time Anxiety” scenarios, e.g., where the system implements calming measures (e.g., “Drive safely, there are potential hazards!”). Automated vehicle features may include automatically adapting one or more of the vehicle's safety system settings to provide increased protection in a “Time Anxiety” scenario, 0021: In an “on commute” example, the system may provide enhanced crowd-sensed traffic data to the vehicle's HMI, with high-resolution data and high severity crowd-sourced events, while suppressing non-essential information. By way of comparison, in an “off commute” scenario, the system may provide enhanced routing services and options, and provide notifications about anomalous events irrespective of severity level. For an “on vacation” scenario, the system may be enabled to provide enhanced location services (e.g., notifications of popular attractions, available parking areas, highly rated restaurants, etc.). For an “unfamiliar location” scenario, the system may provide enhanced navigation services (e.g., sharp curves, sun angles, etc.).];
retrieving a human-machine interface (HMI) policy based on the drive mode [E.g. 0022: Any of the disclosed HMI services may be governed, in whole or in part, via an HMI policy engine. Some potentially important dimensions of Context Domain that are employed by the HMI policy engine may include: commute vs. leisure; other occupants vs. driving alone; time pressure vs. time comfort; trip length/duration; familiar location vs. unfamiliar location; vehicle owned vs. vehicle rented; conventional domains (weather, driver state, etc.). Some important dimensions of the HMI policy include, in some non-limiting examples: visual information; visual warnings; auditory information; auditory warnings; haptic information/warning; active route reminder; inactive route reminder; activation and notification, etc….Driving context may include numerous conditions that are present in a current driving task or a previous driving task (e.g., for historical reference purposes). This may include, but is not limited to, driver behavior under certain ambient light conditions, driver behavior under certain road surface conditions, driver behavior under certain weather conditions, driver behavior on certain types of road (e.g., residential, arterial, freeway), driving speed, current or upcoming driving maneuvers, etc.]; and
causing an HMI system of the vehicle to implement the HMI policy [E.g. 0020-0022].
For claim 4, Grimm discloses wherein the HMI system includes at least one of: an audio system [E.g. 0009, 0022, 0024]; a lighting system [E.g. 0019, 0022]; a display system [E.g. 0009, 0022, 0024]; or a haptic system [E.g. 0022].
For claim 5, Grimm discloses wherein: the HMI system includes an audio system [E.g. 0009, 0024]; and the HMI policy includes at least one of: playing a sound alert [E.g. 0020, 0022]; or playing a song from a predefined genre or from a predefined playlist.
For claim 7, Grimm discloses wherein: the HMI system includes a haptic system [E.g. 0022]; and the HMI policy includes activating one or more haptic devices according to at least one of a predefined activation pattern [E.g. 0022, 0036], a predefined intensity, a predefined duration, or a predefined location within the vehicle.
For claim 8, Grimm discloses wherein: the HMI system includes a display system [E.g. 0022]; and the HMI policy includes displaying at least one of a predefined visual alert [E.g. 0020-0022] or a predefined contextual graphical user interface.
For claim 15, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 18, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Chen et al. (Chen; US 2012/0226413).
For claim 2, Grimm discloses retrieving the HMI policy based on the drive mode [E.g. 0008, 0020-0022].
Grimm fails to expressly disclose retrieving a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieving the HMI policy based on the driver profile
However, as shown by Chen, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include disclose retrieving a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieving an HMI policy based on the driver profile [E.g. 0040, 0028-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Chen in order
to provide an interface that is specific to a particular driver based on stored driver profile and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 20, Grimm discloses retrieving the HMI policy based on the drive mode [E.g. 0008, 0020-0022]; wherein the HMI system includes at least one of: an audio system [E.g. 0009, 0022, 0024]; a lighting system [E.g. 0019, 0022]; a display system [E.g. 0009, 0022, 0024]; or a haptic system [E.g. 0022].
Grimm fails to expressly disclose retrieving a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieving the HMI policy based on the driver profile
However, as shown by Chen, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include disclose retrieving a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieving an HMI policy based on the driver profile [E.g. 0040, 0028-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Chen in order
to provide an interface that is specific to a particular driver based on stored driver profile and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Telford (US 2025/0115168).
For claim 3, Grimm fails to expressly disclose determining the drive mode based on information received from an intelligent powertrain (IPT) system, wherein the IPT system utilizes at least one of sensor information and route information to establish the drive mode.
However, as shown by Telford, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include determining drive mode based on information received from an intelligent powertrain (IPT) system, wherein the IPT system utilizes at least one of sensor information and route information to establish the drive mode [E.g. 0060, 0068. 0072, 0098-0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Telford in order to provide a driving mode that will be most energy efficient based on the sensor and route information and thereby reduce the cost to operate the vehicle.
6. Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Sobhany (US 2021/0261050).
For claim 6, Grimm discloses wherein: the HMI system includes a lighting system [E.g. 0019, 0022].
Grimm fails to expressly disclose the HMI policy includes activating one or more in-cabin lights according to at least one of a predefined activation pattern, a predefined color, a predefined intensity, a predefined duration, or a predefined location within the vehicle.
However, as shown by Sobhany, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include an HMI policy that includes activating one or more in-cabin lights according to at least one of a predefined activation pattern [E.g. 0020-0022, 0014-0015, 0056-0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Sobhany in order to provide a lighting system that will improve the driving experience and thereby enhance the overall driver commute.
For claim 10, Grimm fails to expressly disclose retrieving the HMI policy from a cloud system.
However, as shown by Sobhany, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include retrieving HMI policy from a cloud system [E.g. 0025, 0031-0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Sobhany in order to provide a lighting system that can be updated remotely to improve the driving experience and thereby enhance the overall driver commute.
7. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of admitted prior art (“APA”).
For claim 9, Grimm fails to expressly disclose causing a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from the HMI policy and a second HMI policy; and receiving user input selecting the HMI policy.
Examiner took official notice in the action mailed 5 January 2026, to the fact that it is old and a known expedient in the art of vehicles to cause a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from the HMI policy and a second HMI policy; and receiving user input selecting the HMI policy. As per MPEP § 2144.03(C), the statement that it is old and a known expedient in the art of vehicles that causing a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from the HMI policy and a second HMI policy; and receiving user input selecting the HMI policy is taken to be admitted prior art (APA) because Applicant failed to traverse the assertion of official notice or the traverse was inadequate because Applicant's response or remarks fails to reference Examiner's assertion of official notice. Reliance on APA does not constitute new ground(s) of rejection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art of vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm to include the teaching of APA in order provide the driver with the ability to select a desired HMI policy and thereby enhance the driver convenience.
For claim 14, Grimm fails to expressly disclose wherein the drive mode is at least one of: eco mode; sport mode; snow mode; off-road mode; 2-wheel drive; 4-wheel drive; all-wheel drive; front-wheel drive; engine on/off mode; e-pedal mode; low regenerative braking mode; or high regenerative braking mode.
Examiner took official notice in the action mailed 5 January 2026, to the fact that it is old and a known expedient in the art of vehicles to have the drive mode is at least one of: eco mode; sport mode; snow mode; off-road mode; 2-wheel drive; 4-wheel drive; all-wheel drive; front-wheel drive; engine on/off mode; e-pedal mode; low regenerative braking mode; or high regenerative braking mode. As per MPEP § 2144.03(C), the statement that it is old and a known expedient in the art of vehicles to have the drive mode is at least one of: eco mode; sport mode; snow mode; off-road mode; 2-wheel drive; 4-wheel drive; all-wheel drive; front-wheel drive; engine on/off mode; e-pedal mode; low regenerative braking mode; or high regenerative braking mode is taken to be admitted prior art (APA) because Applicant failed to traverse the assertion of official notice or the traverse was inadequate because Applicant's response or remarks fails to reference Examiner's assertion of official notice. Reliance on APA does not constitute new ground(s) of rejection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art of vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grimm to include the teaching of APA in order provide an HMI policy that is based in different drive modes and thereby enhance the overall driving experience.
8. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Tajeda et al. (Tajeda; US 2021/0370940).
For claim 11, Grimm fails to expressly disclose receiving user input indicating one or more customizations to the HMI policy; associating a resulting customized HMI policy with the drive mode; and storing the customized HMI policy for later retrieval based on the drive mode.
However, as shown by Tajeda, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include receiving user input indicating one or more customizations to HMI policy; associating a resulting customized HMI policy with drive mode; and storing the customized HMI policy for later retrieval based on the drive mode [E.g. 0007, 0011, 0053-0055, 0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Tajeda in order to enable the user to customize the HMI policy for later retrieval based on the drive mode and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 17, Grimm fails to expressly disclose cause a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from the HMI policy and a second HMI policy; receive user input selecting the second HMI policy; reassociate the drive mode with the second HMI policy for later retrieval of the second HMI policy based on the drive mode; and cause the HMI system of the vehicle to implement the second HMI policy.
However, as shown by Tajeda, it was well known in the art of vehicles to cause a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from an HMI policy and a second HMI policy; receive user input selecting the second HMI policy; reassociate drive mode with the second HMI policy for later retrieval of the second HMI policy based on the drive mode; and cause the HMI system of the vehicle to implement the second HMI policy [E.g. 0007, 0011, 0051-0055, 0058, 0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Tajeda in order to enable the user to customize the HMI policy for later retrieval based on the drive mode and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 19, Grimm fails to expressly disclose causing a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from the HMI policy and a second HMI policy; receiving user input selecting one of the HMI policy or the second HMI policy; and training a machine-learning model, for determining an optimal HMI policy based on the drive mode, with the user input.
However, as shown by Tajeda, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include causing a graphical user interface to prompt a user to select from HMI policy and a second HMI policy [E.g. 0007, 0055]; receiving user input selecting one of the HMI policy or the second HMI policy [E.g. 0007, 0011, 0055, 0061]; and training a machine-learning model, for determining an optimal HMI policy based on the drive mode, with the user input. [E.g. 0055, 0061; Note; storing learned user historic selection and retrieving later based on the driving mode is considered a form of training a machine-learning model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Tajeda in order to enable the user to customize the HMI policy for later retrieval based on the drive mode and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Singh et al. (Singh; US 2025/0222945).
For claim 12, Grimm fails to expressly disclose detecting a presence of a passenger in the vehicle based on one or more in-vehicle sensors; and retrieving the HMI policy based on the drive mode and the presence of the passenger.
However, as shown by Singh, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include detecting a presence of a passenger in the vehicle based on one or more in-vehicle sensors; and retrieving HMI policy based on drive mode and the presence of the passenger [E.g. 0215-0221, 0002, 0139].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Hedges in order to enable adjusting the HMI policy based on the vehicle occupancy and thereby enhance the overall driving safety and experience, also it is merely combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Rao et al. (Rao; US 2020/0114931).
For claim 13, Grimm discloses wherein the HMI system includes an audio system [E.g. 0009, 0022, 0024].
Grimm fails to expressly disclose the HMI policy includes playing a song from a predefined genre or from a predefined playlist, the method further comprising: retrieving the song from a third-party music-streaming service.
However, as shown by Rao, it was well known in the art of vehicles to HMI policy includes playing a song from a predefined genre or from a predefined playlist [E.g. 0056, 0020, 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Rao in order to enable playing a song that will help calm the vehicle occupant when needed and thereby enhance the overall driving experience.
Rao fails to expressly teaches retrieving the song from a third-party music-streaming service.
Although Rao fails to expressly disclose teaches retrieving the song from a third-party music-streaming service, Rao teaches playing a song for the vehicle occupant [see analysis above]. However, retrieving the song from a third-party music-streaming service fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rao to include retrieving the song from a third-party music-streaming service in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Rao.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of Telford and further in view of Chen.
For claim 16, Grimm fails to expressly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: determine the drive mode based on information received from an intelligent powertrain (IPT) system, wherein the IPT system utilizes at least one of sensor information and route information to establish the drive mode; retrieve a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieve the HMI policy based on the drive mode and the driver profile.
However, as shown by Telford, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include determine the drive mode based on information received from an intelligent powertrain (IPT) system, wherein the IPT system utilizes at least one of sensor information and route information to establish the drive mode [E.g. 0060, 0068. 0072, 0098-0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm with the teaching of Telford in order to provide a driving mode that will be most energy efficient based on the sensor and route information and thereby reduce the cost to operate the vehicle.
Grimm in view of Telford fails to expressly disclose retrieve a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieve the HMI policy based on the drive mode and the driver profile
However, as shown by Chen, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include retrieve a driver profile for a driver of the vehicle; and retrieve HMI policy based on drive mode and the driver profile [E.g. 0040, 0028-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Grimm in view of Telford with the teaching of Chen in order to provide an interface that is specific to a particular driver based on stored driver profile and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
Response to Remarks
12. The Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks:
(1) Grimm fails to disclose determining a drive mode of a vehicle. Remarks, filed 2 April 2026, pages 7-8.
(2) Grimm fails to discloses retrieving a human-machine interface (HMI) policy based on the drive mode. Remarks, filed 2 April 2026, pages 7-8.
Examiner’s response:
Regarding Applicant first remark, Grimm expressly disclose driver data may be composed of the driver-specific operating characteristics for various driving variables of the driver during the current trip, such as defensive or aggressive driver, tendency to speed and/or tailgate, number of driving violations, etc. [0008], Grimm further discloses characterizing the driving states as “time comfort” (detection of extra time) or “time anxiety” (detecting of time pressure/stress) [0020], the motor vehicle also includes an AV electronic control unit (ECU) that is communicatively connected to the AV telematics unit and the vehicle communications system. This AV ECU is programmed to access, receive or otherwise determine current trip characteristics, including vehicle data and driver data, for a current trip of the vehicle [0010].
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “drive mode” includes the operational state or characterization of the vehicle current trip, by identifying a driver as aggressive or in a state of time anxiety the “drive mode” (e.g. aggrieve and/or anxious mode of operation) is then determined.
Regarding Applicant second remark, Grimm expressly disclose any of the disclosed HMI services may be governed, in whole or in part, via an HMI policy engine… potentially important dimensions of Context Domain that are employed by the HMI policy engine may include…pressure vs. time comfort (correspond to the drive mode determined as explained in the first remark)….[0022], Grimm further discloses in the table shown in [0022] that different policies is mapped to different contexts (e.g. running late – which is a form of time anxiety/drive mode).
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, Grimm expressly disclose the term “HMI policy engine” to select and retrieve specific HMI behaviors (policies) based on the determined context mode.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights