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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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 .
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, 2, 4, 13, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0203945 A1 of record, “Yeom”) in view of Mhun et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0157395 A1, “Mhun”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yeom discloses a method for controlling a vehicle (Figure 1; Paragraph 0033), the method comprising:
Detecting a request, by an occupant of the vehicle, to display a holographic user interface (Paragraph 0033 discloses a process of a driver requesting to brake via a holographic user interface);
Instructing a holographic display device to display the holographic user interface (Paragraphs 0033-0035);
Detecting an interaction between the occupant and the holographic user interface (Paragraph 0034 discloses a recognition region);
Identifying a desired action for the vehicle based on the interaction (Paragraph 0034 discloses identifying the action of braking); and
Instructing the vehicle to perform the desired action (Paragraph 0034 discloses applying a control signal to the braking system after identification).
Yeom fails to disclose that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period.
Mhun also fails to explicitly disclose that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period. However, Mhun discloses a general environment of stopping the display of content when no input signal is detected during a predetermined time (Mhun, Paragraph 0300). Having the disclosure of Mhun and Yeom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at the modification of the holographic display device as disclosed by Yeom that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the user interface and preserving energy usage.
Regarding Claim 2, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the desired action is a modification of one or more of a direction and a speed of travel of the vehicle and wherein the method further comprises a safety check for the desired action and only instructing the vehicle to perform the desired action based on a determination that the safety check has been successfully completed (Paragraphs 0064-0065).
Regarding Claim 4, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the holographic user interface is a scaled down representation of the vehicle (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 10, Yeom discloses a method for controlling an autonomous vehicle (Paragraph 0004), the method comprising: Detecting a request, by an occupant of the autonomous vehicle, to display a holographic user interface (Figure 1, S10; Paragraph 0032);
Instructing a holographic display device to display the holographic user interface comprising a scaled down representation of the autonomous vehicle (Paragraph 0033);
Detecting an interaction between the occupant and holographic user interface (Paragraphs 0033-0034);
Identifying a desired action for the autonomous vehicle based on the interaction wherein the desired action is a modification of one or more of a direction and a speed of travel of the autonomous vehicle (Paragraphs 0033-0034);
Based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle can safely perform the desired action, instructing the autonomous vehicle to perform the desired action (Figure 1, S20-S30; Paragraphs 0037-0039); and
Based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle cannot safely perform the desired action, providing feedback to the occupant of the autonomous vehicle that the desired action cannot be performed (Figure 4, S121; Paragraphs 0059-0065).
Yeom fails to disclose a step of instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no interaction between the occupant and the holographic user interface is detected for at least a predetermined time period.
Mhun also fails to explicitly disclose a step of instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no interaction between the occupant and the holographic user interface is detected for at least a predetermined time period. However, Mhun discloses a general environment of stopping the display of content when no input signal is detected during a predetermined time (Mhun, Paragraph 0300). Having the disclosure of Mhun and Yeom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at the modification of the holographic display device as disclosed by Yeom to include a step of instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no interaction between the occupant and the holographic user interface is detected for at least a predetermined time period. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the user interface and preserving energy usage.
Regarding Claim 13, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the feedback is a change made to an appearance of the holographic user interface (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 17, Yeom discloses a vehicle (Figure 1; Paragraph 0030) comprising:
A plurality of sensors configured to monitor a movement of an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0030-0033);
A holographic display device configured to display a holographic user interface (Figure 1; Paragraph 033); and
A processing system configured to receive data from the plurality of sensors, wherein the processing system is configured to execute a computer program that includes instructions (Paragraphs 0033-0035) to:
Detect a request, by the occupant of the vehicle, to control a system of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0034-0036);
Instruct, based on the request, the holographic display device to display the holographic user interface, wherein a form of the holographic user interface is determined based on the system of the vehicle to be controlled (Paragraphs 0030-0036);
Detect, via one or more of the plurality of sensors, an interaction between the occupant and the holographic user interface (Paragraphs 0033-0034);
Identify a desired action for the system of the vehicle based on the interaction (Paragraph 0033); and
Instruct the vehicle to perform the desired action (Paragraphs 0033-0036).
Yeom fails to disclose that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period.
Mhun also fails to explicitly disclose that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period. However, Mhun discloses a general environment of stopping the display of content when no input signal is detected during a predetermined time (Mhun, Paragraph 0300). Having the disclosure of Mhun and Yeom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at the modification of the holographic display device as disclosed by Yeom that after the vehicle performs the desired action, determining whether an additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface; and instructing the holographic display device to stop displaying the holographic user interface based on a determination that no additional vehicle command is detected via interaction with the holographic user interface for at least a predetermined time period. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the user interface and preserving energy usage.
Regarding Claim 20, Yeom in view of Mhun disclose the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the desired action is a modification of one or more of a direction and a speed of travel of the vehicle and wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to perform a safety check for the desired action and only instructing the vehicle to perform the desired action based on a determination that the safety check has been successfully completed (Figures 1-5; Paragraphs 0030-0036).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Mhun in further view of Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2017/0185037 A1 of record, “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1.
Yeom fails to disclose a step of providing haptic feedback to the occupant based on the detection of the interaction.
However, Lee discloses a similar method comprising a step of providing haptic feedback to the occupant based on the detection of the interaction (Lee, Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to include haptic feedback as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of acknowledging the user’s request (Lee, Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 12, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 10.
Yeom fails to disclose that the feedback is a haptic feedback provided to the occupant.
However, Lee discloses a similar method where the feedback is a haptic feedback provided to the occupant (Lee, Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to include haptic feedback as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of acknowledging the user’s request (Lee, Paragraph 0034).
Claim 6-9, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Mhun in further view of Kassner (US Publication No.: US 2022/0258606 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1.
Yeom fails to disclose that the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the request be a gesture as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing gesture operation (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 7, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1.
Yeom fails to disclose that the interaction is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the interaction is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the interaction be a gesture as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing gesture operation (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 8, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1.
Yeom fails to disclose that the request is a voice command by the occupant of the vehicle that is captured by a microphone disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the request is a voice command by the occupant of the vehicle that is captured by a microphone disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the interaction be a voice command as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing for quick decision-making (Kassner, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 9, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 1.
Yeom fails to disclose that the desired action is one of an adjustment to a seating position of a seat of the occupant of the vehicle, an adjustment to a heating and cooling system of the vehicle, and an adjustment to an infotainment system of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the desired action is one of an adjustment to a seating position of a seat of the occupant of the vehicle, an adjustment to a heating and cooling system of the vehicle, and an adjustment to an infotainment system of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have particular controls as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing for gesture commands (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 14, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 10.
Yeom fails to disclose that the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the request be a gesture as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing gesture operation (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 15, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 10.
Yeom fails to disclose that the interaction is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the interaction is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the interaction be a gesture as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing gesture operation (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 16, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the method of claim 10.
Yeom fails to disclose that the request is a voice command by the occupant of the vehicle that is captured by a microphone disposed in an interior of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar method where the request is a voice command by the occupant of the vehicle that is captured by a microphone disposed in an interior of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the interaction be a voice command as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing for quick decision-making (Kassner, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 18, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the vehicle of claim 17.
Yeom fails to disclose that the system of the vehicle is one of a drive system of the vehicle, an infotainment system of the vehicle, and a heating and cooling system of the vehicle.
However, Kassner discloses a similar vehicle where the system of the vehicle is one of a drive system of the vehicle, an infotainment system of the vehicle, and a heating and cooling system of the vehicle (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed by Yeom to have particular controls as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing for gesture commands (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Regarding Claim 19, Yeom in view of Mhun discloses the vehicle of claim 18.
Yeom fails to disclose that the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle and wherein the system of the vehicle is determined based on a type of the gesture.
However, Kassner discloses a similar vehicle where the request is a gesture made by the occupant of the vehicle that is observed by a camera disposed in an interior of the vehicle and wherein the system of the vehicle is determined based on a type of the gesture (Kassner, Paragraph 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yeom to have the request be a gesture as disclosed by Kassner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of allowing gesture operation (Kassner, Paragraph 0114).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Woo (US 2023/0146677 A1) discloses a display that stops displaying according to control command (Woo, Paragraph 0367)
-Diamond (US 2024/0399860 A1) discloses a user input stops the display a user device (Diamond, Paragraph 0080)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights