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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Amendment, filed on 05/01/2026.
This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 1-17 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 9 and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Examiner maintains the claims are not limited by the specification in accordance with 35 USC 112(f). Accordingly, the claim interpretation is maintained below.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9 and 17) Park fails to disclose separated dual-source reception architecture.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structural connectivity of recited components (e.g. first data reception module and second data reception module) that define the components as separate and different) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the metadata of Park differs from the claimed metadata that instructs how or where to place data within a UX environment.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., metadata that instructs how or where to place data within a UX environment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues (claim 17) Park fails to disclose independent provision devices that supply data to the vehicle information provision system.
In response, Park (Para 41) discloses a sensor providing vehicle data and (Fig. 2) a processor (Para 75; Fig. 3) implementing a web application programming interface providing vehicle interface data and metadata related to the vehicle data. Thus, Park discloses independent provision devices that supply data to the vehicle information provision system.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first data reception module”, “second data reception module” in claims 1, 4 and 17; “first data processing module”, “second data processing module” and “synthesis module” in claims 3-8. Applicant’s Specification (Para 128) discloses “modules” as implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof, without identifying a specific hardware example.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “vehicle data provision device” and “vehicle interface provision device” in claim 17. Applicant’s Specification (Para 46) discloses the vehicle data provision device incudes a sensor; and the Specification (Para 64) discloses vehicle interface provision device is an infotainment system.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites: “a vehicle interface provision device configured to provide… metadata…;
Synthesize the vehicle data based on first metadata”
It is unclear whether metadata provided by the vehicle interface provision device corresponds to “first metadata” used to synthesize the vehicle data. Additionally, it is unclear as to what “first metadata” refers, as a vehicle interface provision device provides metadata corresponding to singular data. Correction is required.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the connectivity of the claimed devices, system and processor as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Fig. 1 & 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jongseon Park et al., US 2013/0345899 A1.
Independent claim 1, discloses a vehicle information provision system, the system comprising:
a first data reception module configured to receive vehicle data (i.e. a second processor 210 (a.k.a. vehicle processor 210) for outputting vehicle data to the first processor 200 – Para 60);
a second data reception module configured to receive vehicle interface data and first metadata related to the vehicle data (i.e. a first processor 200 (a.k.a. information processor 200) for executing a web application 202 – Para 60; an in-vehicle information device includes a first processor for executing a web application; The first processor includes a first-processor-side inter-node communication (INC) interface module for transmitting and receiving information to and from the second processor – Para 10); and
a processor operably connected to the first data reception module and the second data reception module and configured to process the vehicle data based on a first system language, to process the vehicle interface data based on a second system language different from the first system language (i.e. a communication module, e.g. INC, changes information from the second processor (e.g. vehicle processor) in CAN communication language to the web interface definition language (e.g. Java Script or HTML) of the web application – Para 76, 80, 81, 83; information from the second processor (e.g. vehicle processor) is provided in CAN communication language – Para 73, 80); a web interface definition language (e.g. Java Script or HTML) is used by the web application – Para 69, 76), and to synthesize the vehicle data based on the first metadata into a user experience (UX) environment generated by processing the vehicle interface data (i.e. the web application 202 may be displayed on a display unit 101 mounted in the vehicle – Para 70; vehicle data is output to provide a vehicle status message associated with a vehicle data value – Fig. 6; Para 100-106).
Claim 2, Park discloses the vehicle information provision system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output synthesized data, through a display device (i.e. the web application 202 may be displayed on a display unit 101 mounted in the vehicle – Para 70).
Claim 3, Park discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first system language is a vehicle programming language (i.e. CAN communication language – Para 73, 80), and wherein the second system language is a markup language (i.e. a web interface definition language (e.g. Java Script or HTML) – Para 69, 76), and wherein the processor includes: a first data processing module configured to process the vehicle data based on the vehicle programming language (i.e. information from the second processor (e.g. vehicle processor) is provided in CAN communication language – Para 73, 80); a second data processing module configured to process the vehicle interface data based on the markup language, to generate the UX environment (i.e. a web interface definition language (e.g. Java Script or HTML) is used by the web application – Para 69, 76); and a synthesis module configured to synthesize the vehicle data into the UX environment based on the first metadata (i.e. vehicle data is output to provide a vehicle status message associated with a vehicle data value – Fig. 6; Para 100-106 – via a web application platform – Para 75).
Claim 4, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first data reception module is further configured to receive identification data related to the vehicle data (i.e. a navigation session of the in vehicle system receives map/guidance and traffic data – Para 35, 45 – via a sensor – Para 43), and wherein the first data processing module is further configured to process the vehicle data and the identification data (i.e. the second processor, e.g. vehicle processor, provides vehicle data – Para 77; vehicle data, e.g. position, and identification data, e.g. map and traffic, are sensed by the second processor – Para 43) and generate the identification data-matched vehicle data to be stored in a memory (i.e. vehicle position relative to a destination and traffic information are associated and displayed based on travel data obtained from memory – Para 35, 36).
Claim 5, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the second data reception module is further configured to receive second metadata related to the vehicle interface data (i.e. the web application receives vehicle information about transmission gear type or tire pressure – Para 101, 106), and wherein the second data processing module is further configured to process the vehicle interface data based on the second metadata and to generate the UX environment (i.e. the received vehicle information is processed to determine a phase of the transmission – Para 101 – or a maintenance status of the tire pressure – Para 105; the web application outputs a message corresponding to the vehicle data received – Para 106).
Claim 6, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the second data processing module is further configured to allocate a vehicle data display area on the UX environment based on the first metadata (i.e. the web application outputs a message corresponding to the vehicle data received – Para 106), and wherein the synthesis module is further configured to synthesize the vehicle data into the vehicle data display area (i.e. vehicle data communicated to the web application is output as a corresponding message or value on the vehicle display – Para 119).
Claim 7, Park discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the synthesis module is further configured to output the synthesized vehicle data on a display device (i.e. the web application 202 may be displayed on a display unit 101 mounted in the vehicle – Para 70).
Claim 8, Park discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the synthesis module is further configured to search the memory for the vehicle data corresponding to the identification data comprised in the first metadata and synthesize the searched vehicle data into the UX environment (i.e. identify the map/guidance data corresponding to the vehicle position to provide output for the navigation session – Para 36).
Independent claim 9, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claims 10-16, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 2-8 apply herein.
Independent claim 17, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein. Additionally, Park discloses a vehicle data provision device configured to provide vehicle data (i.e. sensor – Para 41); a vehicle interface provision device configured to provide vehicle interface data and metadata related to the vehicle data (i.e. web application programming interface – Para 75; Fig. 3).
Conclusion
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 CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights