CTNF 18/934,730 CTNF 83331 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more. [STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure . Thus, the claim is to a process or product , which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). [STEP2A PRONG I] The claims 11 recite(s): A vehicle comprising: a sensor module ; and a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer-readable instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor , enable the at least one processor to: determine a driving situation based on sensor information received from the sensor module, determine an occurrence of a present event while the vehicle drives, and create a tutorial file for the present event Claim 1 recites similar limitation of claim 11 but lacks some of the limitations found in claim 11. Thus, the limitation of claim 1 is a genus of the more specific claim 11 and shall raise and fall together. Claim 8: A method for providing a user tutorial of a plurality of driving assistance functions in a vehicle, the method comprising: determining a driving situation based on sensor information received from a sensor module; determining an occurrence of a preset event while the vehicle drives; creating a tutorial file for the preset event; and transmitting the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle. The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “vehicle”, “a sensor module”, “a controller”, “processor” and “memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor reviewing the sensor output of a person driving or using the vehicle, creating a tutorial to help said person and providing said tutorial to the person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two. [STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “vehicle”, “a sensor module”, “a controller”, “processor” and “memory”. The “vehicle”, “a sensor module”, “a controller”, “processor” and “memory” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component . Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). [STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 85). As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO). Claim(s) 2-7, 9 12-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-3, 12-13 are either directed to additional abstract ideas since it is directed to the type of sensor information, claims 4-7, 14-18 and 20 are directed to details of the informational content of the tutorial files and interpreted as a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. These claims recite no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima US 20180033327 and in view of the Yako US 20180067486 Claim 1: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of a method for providing a user tutorial of a plurality of driving assistance functions in a vehicle (see paragraph 4 smart tutorial that learns and adapt based on driver interaction with a vehicle), the method comprising: determining a driving situation based on sensor information received from a sensor module (see paragraph 42 sensor 1360 ); determining an occurrence of a preset event while the vehicle drives (see paragraph 91-92). The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event(see paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of creating a tutorial file for the preset event, as taught by the Yako reference in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 2: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of wherein the tutorial file includes the sensor information during a preset driving interval before and after a time point of the occurrence of the preset event (see paragraph 78) Claims 3 and 13: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of wherein the sensor information includes a camera image (see paragraph 57 camera), and wherein the sensor information includes a speed of the vehicle (see paragraph 40 speed of the vehicle), a distance from a surrounding vehicle (see paragraph 96 distance between vehicle) or any combination thereof. Claims 6 and 16: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the tutorial file further includes an inquiry for purchasing of the at least one function, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting a purchasing decision for the at least one function to a server. However, the limitation of the “wherein the tutorial file further includes an inquiry for purchasing of the at least one function, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting a purchasing decision for the at least one function to a server” appears to be an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Alternatively, the limitation of wherein the tutorial file further includes an inquiry for purchasing of the at least one function, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting a purchasing decision for the at least one function to a server can also be interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive printed matter. Since the limitation is directed to the content of the tutorial files and the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. The examiner takes the position that that limitation is not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate and as such can not be interpreted to have patentable weight. “[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. If a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does exist, the examiner should give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Claim 7: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of comprising downloading and installing a computer program for the at least one function from the server. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of comprising downloading and installing a computer program for the at least one function from the server (see paragraph 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of comprising downloading and installing a computer program for the at least one function from the server, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 8: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of a method for providing a user tutorial of a plurality of driving assistance functions in a vehicle, the method comprising: determining a driving situation based on sensor information received from a sensor module (see paragraph 42 sensor 1360); determining an occurrence of a preset event while the vehicle drives (see paragraph 77 vehicle event). The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event; and transmitting the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event (see paragraph 28) and transmitting the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle (see paragraph 27 transmit to the tutorial to the identified driver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of creating a tutorial file for the preset event; and transmitting the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle, as taught by the Yako reference in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 10: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of further comprising transmitting the tutorial file to a server. The Yako reference provides a teaching of transmitting the tutorial file to a server (see paragraph 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of Nishijima with the feature of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a server, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 11: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of a vehicle (see FIG. 2 item 2100 and 2110) comprising: a sensor module (see paragraph 57 item 2150, 1360); and a controller comprising at least one processor (see paragraph 35 item 1330) and a memory (see paragraph 34 item 1340) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to: determine a driving situation based on sensor information received from the sensor module (see paragraph 42 sensor 1360 ), determine an occurrence of a preset event while the vehicle drives (see paragraph 91-92). The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of creating a tutorial file for the preset event(see paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of creating a tutorial file for the preset event, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 12: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching wherein the tutorial file includes the sensor information during a preset driving interval before and after a time point of occurrence of the preset event. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of wherein the tutorial file includes the sensor information during a preset driving interval before and after a time point of occurrence of the preset event (see paragraph 28-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of wherein the tutorial file includes the sensor information during a preset driving interval before and after a time point of occurrence of the preset event, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 17: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to download and install a computer program for the at least one function from the server. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to download and install a computer program for the at least one function from the server (see paragraph 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of the instructions further enable the at least one processor to download and install a computer program for the at least one function from the server, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 18: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle. The Yako reference provides a teaching of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle (see paragraph 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a display device in the vehicle, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4). Claim 20: The Nishijima reference provides a teaching of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a server. However, the Yako reference provides a teaching of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a server (see paragraph 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima with the feature of wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit the tutorial file to a server, as taught by the Yako reference, in order to ensure that the driver/user is provided with the relevant information without overwhelming said driver (see paragraph 4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5, 9, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima US 20180033327, in view of the Yako US 20180067486 and further in view of Lim US 20190118805 Claims 4 and 14: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the tutorial file includes usage simulation details for at least one function of the plurality of driving assistance functions. However, the Lim reference provides a teaching of wherein the tutorial file includes usage simulation details for at least one function of the plurality of driving assistance functions (see paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of wherein the tutorial file includes usage simulation details for at least one function of the plurality of driving assistance functions, as taught by the Lim reference, in order to ensure that the vehicle is a safe condition before providing the user with the tutorial. Claims 5 and 15: The Nishijima reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the tutorial file further includes usage guidance on a user input corresponding to the at least one function. However, the Lim reference provides a teaching of wherein the tutorial file further includes usage guidance on a user input corresponding to the at least one function (see paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of wherein the tutorial file further includes usage guidance on a user input corresponding to the at least one function, as taught by the Lim reference, in order to ensure that the vehicle is a safe condition before providing the user with the tutorial. Claim 9: The Nhishijima reference is silent on the teaching of displaying the tutorial file on a screen in the vehicle after driving of the vehicle is terminated. However, the Lim reference provide a teaching of displaying the tutorial file on a screen in the vehicle after driving of the vehicle is terminated (see paragraph 70 and 81 vehicles in a stop state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of wherein the display device is configured to output the tutorial file to a screen after driving of the vehicle is terminated, as taught by the Lim reference, in order to ensure that the vehicle is a safe condition before providing the user with the tutorial. Claim 19: The Nhishijima reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the display device is configured to output the tutorial file to a screen after driving of the vehicle is terminated. However, the Lim reference provide a teaching of wherein the display device is configured to output the tutorial file to a screen after driving of the vehicle is terminated (see paragraph 70 and 81 vehicle in a stop state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Nishijima reference with the feature of wherein the display device is configured to output the tutorial file to a screen after driving of the vehicle is terminated, as taught by the Lim reference, in order to ensure that the vehicle is a safe condition before providing the user with the tutorial. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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. /ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,730 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights