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 .
The present Office Action is responsive to communication received on 10/23/2024.
The present claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170334457 to Park et al, hereinafter Park, in view of US 20110295444 to Westra et al, hereinafter Westra.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause operations of ([0018]):
receiving a command to execute an application;
(Park [0005] “The actions include receiving an indication to execute an application in a vehicle”.)
determining whether the application is in a first group of applications;
(Park [0005] “obtaining classification data associated with the application,”
Park [0006] “data indicating that the application is a front-end application or a back-end application;”
Park [0052] “A front-end application refers to an application that a driver can directly interact with. Examples of front-end applications include, but are not limited to, a phone call application, web-browsing application, a text messaging application, and a navigation application.”
Park [0053] “A back-end application refers to a service application that does not require direct interaction with a driver. Back-end applications may be connected to front-end applications. Examples of back-end applications include, but are not limited to, applications that monitor performance of the vehicle or parts of the vehicle, applications that control certain functions such as lighting or windshield wiper activation, or applications that provide services for other applications such as content providers and broadcast receivers.”
detecting whether a vehicle is in a parked state in response to determining that the application is in the first group;
(Park [0033] “Referring to the exemplary implementation in FIG. 1, a vehicle processor in a vehicle processing system obtains classification data associated with the electronic game application. The vehicle processor then determines whether the classification data indicates that the electronic game application is an application that can be executed when the vehicle is in a driving operational status. Additionally, the vehicle processor determines whether the vehicle system rules and conditions permit an application to be executed in the driving operational status of the vehicle.”
Park [0034] “Based on the classification data associated with the electronic game application, the vehicle operating status, and the vehicle system rules and conditions, the vehicle processor determines that the electronic game application cannot continue to be executed. As a result, the vehicle processor sends instructions to pause or terminate the game.”)
Park discloses prohibiting the application from executing based on whether the vehicle is in the parked state ([0034]); Park also discloses “a front-end application that uses a graphical user interface but should only be executed when the vehicle is in a parking state or not moving” ([0029]), implicitly teaching accessing APIs controlling the display based on whether the vehicle is in a parked state. However, Park does not explicitly teach: prohibiting the application from access to one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of the vehicle.
In an analogous art, Westra discloses access to vehicle resource is accomplished through APIs, (Westra [0061] “As such, the security manager 108 may additionally define which APIs may be accessible and provide access control lists to restrict access to the APIs.”)
Park and Westra are analogous art both concerned with regulating a vehicle application’s access to vehicle resources/functions. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the instant application was effectively filed to have modified Park’s vehicle-state-based restriction of applications to include prohibiting the application from access to one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of the vehicle, as taught by Westra, because applications interacting with APIs are well-known in the art and, the combination would be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 11 and 16, the claims recite substantially the same content as Claim 1 and are rejected with the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 2, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the prohibiting includes:
prohibiting the first group of applications in response to detecting that the vehicle is not in the parked state.
(Park [0031] “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary scenario of disabling execution of an electronic game application when a vehicle begins to move.”
Park [0054] “Classification data may also include an indication of a safety level of an application and the vehicle operating modes the application may be used in. For example, in some implementations, an application may be classified as being unsafe for use when a driver is driving and the application may also be designated as being executable only when the vehicle is in a parked vehicle operation status.”; see also [0055])
Regarding Claim 12 and 17, the claims recite substantially the same content as Claim 2 and are rejected with the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 3, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 2,
wherein the first group of applications includes applications that distract the driver’s attention.
(Park [0054] “Classification data may also include an indication of a safety level of an application and the vehicle operating modes the application may be used in. For example, in some implementations, an application may be classified as being unsafe for use when a driver is driving and the application may also be designated as being executable only when the vehicle is in a parked vehicle operation status.”
Park [0057] “In some implementations, an application may be classified as being unsafe for use when a vehicle is in motion and the application may be designated as being non-executable in any vehicle operation status involving vehicle movement.”)
Regarding Claim 13 and 18, the claims recite substantially the same content as Claim 3 and are rejected with the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 4, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 2,
wherein the first group of applications includes applications that affect the vehicle operation.
(Park [0053] “A back-end application refers to a service application that does not require direct interaction with a driver. Back-end applications may be connected to front-end applications. Examples of back-end applications include, but are not limited to, applications that monitor performance of the vehicle or parts of the vehicle, applications that control certain functions such as lighting or windshield wiper activation, or applications that provide services for other applications such as content providers and broadcast receivers.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 2,
wherein the first group of applications includes applications that cannot be operated by voice input.
(Park [0053] “A back-end application refers to a service application that does not require direct interaction with a driver. Back-end applications may be connected to front-end applications. Examples of back-end applications include, but are not limited to, applications that monitor performance of the vehicle or parts of the vehicle, applications that control certain functions such as lighting or windshield wiper activation, or applications that provide services for other applications such as content providers and broadcast receivers.” The examiner interprets application that monitors performance as an example of application that cannot be operated by voice.)
Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the detecting is based on at least one of a speedometer, accelerometer, or transmission gear sensor (Park [0070] speed sensors and accelerometers).
Claim 6-7, 9, 14-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Westra, further in view of US 20220334822 to Sakakibara et al, hereinafter Sakakibara.
Regarding Claim 6, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, but fails to teach: wherein the prohibiting includes:
prohibiting the first group of applications in response to detecting that the vehicle is in the parked state. In an analogous art, Sakakibara discloses identifying vehicles are parked ([0071]), then terminating all active software applications before executing updates ([0078]); therefore, Sakakibara discloses prohibiting the first group of applications in response to detecting that the vehicle is in the parked state.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the instant application was effectively filed to have modified Park and Westra’s vehicle-state-based restriction of applications, by prohibiting applications in response to detecting a parked state as taught by Sakakibara because it would ensure a safe environment for executing updates and would optimize resources for the updates.
Regarding Claim 14 and 19, the claim recites substantially the same content as Claim 6 and is rejected with the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 7, Park in view of Westra and Sakakibara discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 6, wherein the first group of applications includes applications with vehicle operation (Park [0053] “A back-end application refers to a service application that does not require direct interaction with a driver. Back-end applications may be connected to front-end applications. Examples of back-end applications include, but are not limited to, applications that monitor performance of the vehicle or parts of the vehicle, applications that control certain functions such as lighting or windshield wiper activation, or applications that provide services for other applications such as content providers and broadcast receivers.”);
Regarding Claim 15 and 20, the claim recites substantially the same content as Claim 7 and is rejected with the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising detecting an OTA operation;
(Park [0071] “In some implementations, the vehicle processing system 420 may determine network connectivity and internal processing speeds and diagnostics when determining the vehicle operating status. For example, the vehicle processing system 420 may determine that the vehicle is not connected, has a weak wireless connection, or a strong wireless connection to a wireless network, such as a cellular network or the Internet. In some cases, the vehicle processing system 420 may determine the status of one or more processors or components of the vehicle processing system 420 such that any processing errors or delays in executing applications may be identified.”)
Park in view of Westra does not explicitly teach prohibiting the application from access to one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of the vehicle in response to detecting that the vehicle is performing an OTA operation.
In an analogous art, Sakakibara discloses prohibiting the application from access to the one or more APIs of the vehicle in response to detecting that the vehicle is performing an OTA operation, (Sakakibara “[0078] The vehicle controlling section 21 terminates all currently active software applications, shuts down the vehicle controller 20, and subsequently reads the update data from the software storing section 22 to execute an update of the software.”).
Park, Westra, and Sakakibara are all analogous art concerned with regulating a vehicle application’s access to vehicle resources/functions. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the instant application was effectively filed to have implemented Park and Westra’s vehicle-state-based restriction of applications as taught by Sakakibara, because prohibiting application from access to API’s of the vehicle in response to detecting that the vehicle is performing and OTA operation would optimize resources for the OTA operations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170334457 to Park et al, hereinafter Park, in view of US 20110295444 to Westra et al, hereinafter Westra, further in view of US 8957760 to Nishijima et al, hereinafter Nishijima.
Regarding Claim 10, Park and Westra discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 1.
Park does not explicitly teach the medium of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a battery-charge operation.
In an analogous art, Westra discloses detecting a battery-charge operation / charging status, (Westra [0064] “The APIs may be OEM developed APIs, third-party developed APIs and/or open APIs. Non-limiting examples of APIs and their non-limiting functions that may be installed on the VCS 1 are listed in Table 1 below.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 API Description/Function Vehicle Interaction Interaction through vehicle network interface layer; Interaction with the vehicle network (e.g., CAN); Diagnostic systems; GPS; Clock; Personalization; Cluster display; Button events; Door lock; Fuel/electric vehicle charging status.”)
Park and Westra are analogous art both concerned with regulating a vehicle application’s access to vehicle resources/functions. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the instant application was effectively filed to detect a battery-charging application as taught by Westra in Park’s vehicle-state-based restriction of applications because it would make the user of the vehicle aware of the charging operation.
Park in view of Westra does not explicitly teach: prohibiting the application from access to the one or more APIs of the vehicle in response to detecting that the vehicle is performing a charging operation.
In an analogous art, Nishijima discloses prohibiting a vehicle function upon the start of charging, (Nishijima 3:61-67, 4:1-15: “The PLC adaptor 32 functions as transmission means for transmitting the prohibition request signal (immobilizer request signal) that requests the prohibition of execution of vehicle functions when the vehicle is charged. The transmission of the prohibition request signal when the vehicle is charged may be the transmission of the prohibition request signal performed immediately before charging of the vehicle is started, the transmission of the prohibition request signal performed simultaneously with the vehicle charging process, and the transmission of the prohibition request signal performed immediately after the charging is started. Essentially, the adaptor may be configured to transmit a command signal for disabling the execution of predetermined functions (for example, engine start, door lock release, etc.) when the vehicle is charged.”)
Park, Westra and Nishijima are analogous art both concerned with regulating a vehicle application’s access to vehicle resources/functions. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the instant application was effectively filed to prohibit an application access to APIs when the vehicle is performing a charging operation because it would prevent execution of applications such as an authentication application during the charging and prevent theft (Nishijima 1:33-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rashiq T Choudhury whose telephone number is (571)272-8582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 5712701138. 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.
/R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights