DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/791,129. All claims are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 15 cite “wherein the prioritizing the user-based adjustment over the target setting, further comprises: transitioning the operation of the automobile systems towards the target setting in one or more increments over time.” However, claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 15 is dependent on claim 14 which cite “controlling an operation of the automobile systems based on prioritizing the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems over the target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions.” As according to claims 1 and 14 the user-based setting is prioritized over the target setting, it is unclear what target setting is being transitioned to in one or more increments of time. Is it the original target setting or is it a new setting due to the prioritized user-based adjustment? For examination purposes it will be interpreted as a new setting due to the prioritized user-based adjustment. Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faust (US 20180001734).
Regarding claim 1, Faust teaches a method of controlling synchronized operations of automobile systems (Fig. 7), comprising:
receiving a first indication to initiate, based on a set of coded instructions, a synchronized routine performed by the automobile systems, the synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems to a target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions (in Fig. 7, step 702 discusses receiving input data associated with a user that indicates the user’s desired settings for the interior of the vehicle which initiates step 704 a determination of optimal conditions (target setting) based on the input data and step 706 the output configurations required to achieve the optimal conditions (synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems) and synthesizes (step 708) and generates the commands (step 710));
receiving a second indication associated with a user-based adjustment to the automobile systems, the user-based adjustment being in conflict with the target setting ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the new input data requires new output data (by requiring new output data it is interpreted that the new input data is in conflict with the initial optimal conditions)); and
controlling an operation of the automobile systems based on prioritizing the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems over the target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data)).
Regarding claim 2, Faust teaches wherein the prioritizing the user-based adjustment over the target setting, further comprises: transitioning the operation of the automobile systems towards the target setting in one or more increments over time ([0123] discusses implementing the adjusted toward the new setting with different configurations over multiple time steps where it is interpreted that each configuration for each time step would be an increment over time).
Regarding claim 3, Faust teaches wherein the one or more increments are associated with an operational range that prevents the transitioning of the automobile systems from being incremented outside the operational range ([0155] discusses determining the energy available for running the configurations of the automobile system that can implement the optimal conditions and utilizing configurations that will allow the system to operate on the energy available where the energy available is interpreted as an operational range).
Regarding claim 4, Faust teaches wherein the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems is based on at least one of: real-time user control of the automobile systems, historical user control of the automobile systems, a user profile, a user preference, detection of a current cabin condition of an automobile including the automobile systems, or a mobility state of the automobile ([0136] discusses the user input including vehicle sensor data including current cabin condition and “user data indicating one or more of user climate condition preferences, user health data, present user activities, historical user activity patterns, user activity schedules, user device location relative to the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 6, Faust teaches monitoring for the second indication associated with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems during an execution of the set of coded instructions initiated based on the first indication ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data) where [0059] discusses the implementation of receiving the user input).
Regarding claim 7, Faust teaches adjusting, after a completion of the synchronized routine, the automobile systems to at least one of: a first setting of the automobile systems at a launch of the synchronized routine, or a second setting of the automobile systems indicated during execution of the synchronized routine and corresponding to the user-based adjustment ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data) where the new output data is interpreted as the second setting of the automobile systems corresponding to the user-based adjustment).
Regarding claim 8, Faust teaches wherein the manipulation of the automobile systems during a re-execution of the synchronized routine is adjusted based on a current cabin condition being within a threshold range of historical data associated with a prior execution of the synchronized routine ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data) and where [0060] discusses the input data as including current cabin conditions and historical data of the user).
Regarding claim 10, Faust teaches wherein the synchronized routine is performed using a vehicle control manager that controls the operation of the automobile systems ([0047] discusses the climate control system which implements the climate control routine as being communicatively coupled with various climate controlling systems within the vehicle and using command signals to control the operation of the systems).
Regarding claim 11, Faust teaches wherein the automobile systems include at least one of: a display panel, a lighting system, an audio system, a heat ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system, a haptic motor, a seat positing system, a seat heater, a seat cooler, a scent dispenser, or a steering wheel element ([0047] discusses this as including the air conditioning system).
Regarding claim 12, Faust teaches wherein the set of coded instructions corresponds to at least one of: pre-programmed instructions, customizable instructions, or instructions generated by an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model ([0022] discusses the system being implemented with coded memory storing program instructions).
Regarding claim 13, Faust teaches determining whether to override an activation of the automobile systems when the activation interferes with an ordinary operation of an automobile that includes the automobile systems ([0141]-[0142] discuss balancing priorities of the climate control systems to determine which systems should be activated including priorities for the amount of energy available to the operation of the automobile).
Regarding claim 14, Faust teaches an apparatus for controlling synchronized operations of automobile systems (computer system 900), comprising:
a memory (memory 920); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (processors 910) and configured to:
receive a first indication to initiate, based on a set of coded instructions, a synchronized routine performed by the automobile systems, the synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems to a target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions (in Fig. 7, step 702 discusses receiving input data associated with a user that indicates the user’s desired settings for the interior of the vehicle which initiates step 704 a determination of optimal conditions (target setting) based on the input data and step 706 the output configurations required to achieve the optimal conditions (synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems) and synthesizes (step 708) and generates the commands (step 710));
receive a second indication associated with a user-based adjustment to the automobile systems, the user-based adjustment being in conflict with the target setting ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the new input data requires new output data (by requiring new output data it is interpreted that the new input data is in conflict with the initial optimal conditions)); and
control an operation of the automobile systems based on prioritization of the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems over the target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data)).
Regarding claim 15, Faust teaches wherein to prioritize the user-based adjustment over the target setting, the at least one processor is further configured to: transition the operation of the automobile systems towards the target setting in one or more increments over time ([0123] discusses implementing the adjusted toward the new setting with different configurations over multiple time steps where it is interpreted that each configuration for each time step would be an increment over time).
Regarding claim 16, Faust teaches wherein the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems is based on at least one of: real-time user control of the automobile systems, historical user control of the automobile systems, a user profile, a user preference, detection of a current cabin condition of an automobile including the automobile systems, or a mobility state of the automobile ([0136] discusses the user input including vehicle sensor data including current cabin condition and “user data indicating one or more of user climate condition preferences, user health data, present user activities, historical user activity patterns, user activity schedules, user device location relative to the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 18, Faust teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: monitoring for the second indication associated with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems during an execution of the set of coded instructions initiated based on the first indication ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data) where [0059] discusses the implementation of receiving the user input).
Regarding claim 19, Faust teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust, after a completion of the synchronized routine, the automobile systems to at least one of: a first setting of the automobile systems at a launch of the synchronized routine, or a second setting of the automobile systems indicated during execution of the synchronized routine and corresponding to the user-based adjustment ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data) where the new output data is interpreted as the second setting of the automobile systems corresponding to the user-based adjustment).
Regarding claim 20, Faust teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, the code when executed by at least one processor ([0159] discusses the computer system 900 being implemented with a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code) causes the at least one processor to:
receive a first indication to initiate, based on a set of coded instructions, a synchronized routine performed by automobile systems, the synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems to a target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions (in Fig. 7, step 702 discusses receiving input data associated with a user that indicates the user’s desired settings for the interior of the vehicle which initiates step 704 a determination of optimal conditions (target setting) based on the input data and step 706 the output configurations required to achieve the optimal conditions (synchronized routine including a manipulation of the automobile systems) and synthesizes (step 708) and generates the commands (step 710));
receive a second indication associated with a user-based adjustment to the automobile systems, the user-based adjustment being in conflict with the target setting ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the new input data requires new output data (by requiring new output data it is interpreted that the new input data is in conflict with the initial optimal conditions)); and
control an operation of the automobile systems based on prioritization of the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems over the target setting indicated by the set of coded instructions ([0144] discusses steps 702-710 being implemented recursively based on receiving new sets of input data from the user (user-based adjustment) where the system determines new output data according to the new user input data (prioritizes the new user-based adjusted input data)).
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 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faust in view of Stevanovic (US 20170158023).
Regarding claim 5, Faust teaches associating data with a period of time [0095] but does not explicitly teach wherein the set of coded instructions includes time codes for the automobile systems to perform the synchronized routine, the time codes being an indicator of a time at which the manipulation of the automobile systems conflicts with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems.
Stevanovic teaches wherein the set of coded instructions includes time codes for the automobile systems to perform the synchronized routine, the time codes being an indicator of a time at which the manipulation of the automobile systems conflicts with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems ([0036] discusses collecting the location and time/date where a control setting is determined (where the user has indicated a change therefore being in conflict with the set climate control) with [0038] discussing the time/date as including the time potentially down to the second).
Faust teaches associating data with a period of time. Stevanovic teaches a time code associated with a change in the data by the user. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Faust with the time code of Stevanovic as Stevanovic teaches that this improves the accuracy of the vehicle settings associated with the user improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 17, Faust teaches associating data with a period of time [0095] but does not explicitly teach wherein the set of coded instructions includes time codes for the automobile systems to perform the synchronized routine, the time codes being an indicator of a time at which the manipulation of the automobile systems conflicts with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems.
Stevanovic teaches wherein the set of coded instructions includes time codes for the automobile systems to perform the synchronized routine, the time codes being an indicator of a time at which the manipulation of the automobile systems conflicts with the user-based adjustment to the automobile systems ([0036] discusses collecting the location and time/date where a control setting is determined (where the user has indicated a change therefore being in conflict with the set climate control) with [0038] discussing the time/date as including the time potentially down to the second).
Faust teaches associating data with a period of time. Stevanovic teaches a time code associated with a change in the data by the user. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Faust with the time code of Stevanovic as Stevanovic teaches that this improves the accuracy of the vehicle settings associated with the user improving the user’s experience.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faust in view of Evans (US 20100127847).
Regarding claim 9, Faust teaches the vehicle display being included in a vehicle dashboard [0059], but does not explicitly teach wherein vehicle indictors conveying information that is separate from implementation of the synchronized routine is layered with the set of coded instructions.
Evans teaches wherein vehicle indictors conveying information that is separate from implementation of the synchronized routine is layered with the set of coded instructions ([0018] discusses a vehicle dashboard display that conveys the heating and ventilation interface to the user while layered with other indicators including seat belt and engine malfunction indicators).
Faust teaches a vehicle dashboard display with a climate control interface. Evans teaches a vehicle dashboard display with a climate control interface and alert indicators. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Faust with the display of Evans as this would allow for safety indicators to display to the user while maintaining the ability to control the climate control system making the system safer for the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Scofield (US 20170015318, IDS) teaches personalizing vehicle controls to user preferences; Xiong (US 20150197205) teaches determining user preferences over vehicle control preset conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657