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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s response filed 5/22/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending and considered below.
Response to Arguments
Certified copies of priority documents for application numbers 10-2023-0097022, 10-2023-0097023, and 10-2023-0097025 have been received. A certified copy of a priority document for application number 10-2023-0097024 has NOT been received.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding revised step 2A, prong one, applicant argued that claim 1 is directed to a specific machine/system integrated into a vehicle’s physical hardware and cockpit interface. Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising an input interface, a memory, and a processor. The processor transmits a control command. The intended function of the control command is to vary the operating range of a knob. Determining an operating range of a knob based on a vehicle driving mode is an abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind).
Regarding revised step 2A, prong two, applicant argued, arguendo, even if claim 1 is deemed to be abstract, claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, by providing dynamic physical limitation of a knob’s movement on a vehicle display during real-world cockpit reconfiguration, which improves the functioning of the vehicle’s human-machine interface in a specific, concrete way. Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving input information and transmitting a control command. Receiving input information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Transmitting a control command is insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 1 does not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicle display devices).
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons given below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-8, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-8 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-8 are directed to a system (input interface, memory, and processor).
Claims 1-8 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-8 are directed to a system for determining an operating range of a knob based on a vehicle driving mode. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass an operator of a vehicle determining that the knob area (position) associated with a driving information cluster is no longer required when switching from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claim 7 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of automatically controlling the knob to move to an area other than a control range of the passenger seat entertainment display. This additional element positively recites a control function and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 7 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of automatically moving the knob to an area other than a cluster control range of the in-vehicle display. This additional element positively recites a control function and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 8 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-6 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving input information and transmitting a control command. Receiving input information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Transmitting a control command is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 1-6 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1-6 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicle display devices).
Claims 1-6 include the step 2B additional elements of an input interface, a memory, and a processor. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the input interface, memory, and processor are anything other than a conventional input interface, memory, and processor. Receiving input information is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic input interface. Providing determinations based on input information is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic memory and processor. Input interfaces, memories, and processors are widely prevalent and in common use in vehicle display devices. An input interface, memory, and processor are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the vehicle display device industry. Therefore, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 9-16, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 9-16 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claims 9-16 are directed to a method.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 9-16 are directed to a method for determining an operating range of a knob based on a vehicle driving mode. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass an operator of a vehicle determining that the knob area (position) associated with a driving information cluster is no longer required when switching from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claim 15 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of automatically controlling the knob to move to an area other than a control range of the passenger seat entertainment display. This additional element positively recites a control function and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 15 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of automatically moving the knob to an area other than a cluster control range of the in-vehicle display. This additional element positively recites a control function and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 16 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 9-14 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving input information and transmitting a control command. Receiving input information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Transmitting a control command is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 9-14 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 9-14 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicle display devices).
Claims 9-14 do not include any step 2B additional elements. Therefore, claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Edgren (US-2015/0210272-A1) is the closest prior art to the applicant’s invention. Edgren discloses an interface arrangement for a vehicle having an autonomous drive (AD) system (Abstract). A communication device is arranged to be manually operated by a user of the vehicle (paragraphs [0064-0067]). The interface arrangement comprises a manually operated communication device which is arranged to be movable between multiple predetermined positions and to input commands into the autonomous drive system, wherein each predetermined position of the manually operated communication device codes for a command to the autonomous drive system (paragraphs [0009-0012]). The communication device may be used to input a command for entering or exiting an autonomous drive (AD) mode from a manual drive (MD) mode (paragraphs [0088-0091]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights