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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 and 04/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura et al. (US20190071101, referred to as Emura) in view of Allen et al. (US9537811, referred to as Allen).
Regarding claim 1: Emura discloses: A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: identifying, at an in-vehicle computing device of a vehicle of a given user, an occurrence of a given suggestion state for providing suggestions for presentation to the given user, the given suggestion state being one of a plurality of disparate suggestion states; generating, locally at the in-vehicle computing device, one or more candidate suggestions, wherein each of the one or more candidate suggestions is personalized to the given user for the given suggestion state; storing, in on-device storage of the in-vehicle computing device, the one or more candidate suggestions in association with the given suggestion state; causing, in response to identifying the occurrence of the given suggestion state, a given candidate suggestion, from among the one or more candidate suggestions, to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device, wherein causing the given candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device comprises: causing a given candidate suggestion interface element, that is associated with the given candidate suggestion, to be provided for presentation to the user via a display of the in-vehicle computing device; and ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior). [in response to determining that the given user has not provided user input directed to the given candidate suggestion interface element and in response to determining that a threshold duration of time has elapsed since causing the given candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device:] causing an additional candidate suggestion, from among the one or more candidate suggestions, to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device, wherein the additional candidate suggestion is in addition to the given candidate suggestion, and wherein causing the additional candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device comprises: causing the given candidate suggestion interface element, that is associated with the given candidate suggestion, to be dynamically adapted with an additional candidate suggestion interface element, that is associated with the additional candidate ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Emura does not explicitly disclose: in response to determining that the given user has not provided user input directed to the given candidate suggestion interface element and in response to determining that a threshold duration of time has elapsed since causing the given candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device:
Emura does not disclose the following limitations, however Allen, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: in response to determining that the given user has not provided user input directed to the given candidate suggestion interface element and in response to determining that a threshold duration of time has elapsed since causing the given candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device: ([col. 2, lines 23-28] the display time may be a default setting or a setting specified by the recipient. Regardless of the setting technique, the message is transitory (i.e., the message is deleted or otherwise made inaccessible after a certain period of time or after a certain action has been taken)
Emura and Allen are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle suggestion presentation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle suggestion system of Emura to enable the thresholded response and additional requests in Allen.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the suggestion method disclosed in Allen with the method applied to a situation in which a user is unresponsive as is the case in Allen.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Allen further teaches: further comprising: in response to determining that the given user has not provided the user input directed to the given candidate suggestion interface element and in response to determining that the threshold duration of time has not elapsed since causing the given candidate suggestion to be provided for presentation to the given user via the in-vehicle computing device: causing the given candidate suggestion interface element, that is associated with the given candidate suggestion, to persist at the display of the in-vehicle computing device. ([col. 2, lines 23-28] the display time may be a default setting or a setting specified by the recipient. Regardless of the setting technique, the message is transitory (i.e., the message is deleted or otherwise made inaccessible after a certain period of time or after a certain action has been taken)
As previously stated, Emura and Allen are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle suggestion presentation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle suggestion system of Emura to enable the thresholded response and additional requests in Allen.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the suggestion method disclosed in Allen with the method applied to a situation in which a user is unresponsive as is the case in Allen.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Allen further teaches: further comprising: in response to determining that the given user has provided the user input directed to the given candidate suggestion interface element: causing the in-vehicle computing device or an additional computing device, that is communicatively coupled to the in-vehicle computing device, to perform one or more corresponding actions associated with the given candidate suggestion. ([col. 2, lines 23-28] the display time may be a default setting or a setting specified by the recipient. Regardless of the setting technique, the message is transitory (i.e., the message is deleted or otherwise made inaccessible after a certain period of time or after a certain action has been taken)
As previously stated, Emura and Allen are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle suggestion presentation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle suggestion system of Emura to enable the thresholded response and additional requests in Allen.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the suggestion method disclosed in Allen with the method applied to a situation in which a user is unresponsive as is the case in Allen.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 3,
Emura further teaches: wherein fulfillment data associated with each of the one or more corresponding actions is pre-cached in the on-device storage of the in-vehicle computing device. ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Allen further teaches: wherein the threshold duration of time is based on a type of the given suggestion state. ([col. 2, lines 23-28] the display time may be a default setting or a setting specified by the recipient. Regardless of the setting technique, the message is transitory (i.e., the message is deleted or otherwise made inaccessible after a certain period of time or after a certain action has been taken)
As previously stated, Emura and Allen are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle suggestion presentation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle suggestion system of Emura to enable the thresholded response and additional requests in Allen.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the suggestion method disclosed in Allen with the method applied to a situation in which a user is unresponsive as is the case in Allen.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 5,
Emura further discloses: wherein the type of the given suggestion state is one of: a given software application contextual suggestion state, a vehicle contextual suggestion state, a given user contextual suggestion state, or a periodic suggestion state. ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Emura further discloses: wherein the occurrence of the given suggestion state is identified in response to detecting one or more contextual signals that trigger generating one or more candidate suggestions for the given user, wherein the one or more contextual signals include one or more application contextual signals that characterize a state of a given software application accessible at the in-vehicle computing device of the vehicle of the given user, and wherein the state of the given software application includes one or more of: an electronic communication being received by the given software application, a proactive notification associated with the given software application to be provided for presentation to the given user, or a reactive notification associated with the given software application to be provided for presentation to the given user. ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Emura further discloses: wherein generating the one or more candidate suggestions comprises: identifying one or more suggestion templates stored in association with the given suggestion state; identifying one or more corresponding placeholders for each of the one or more suggestion templates; and populating each of the one or more corresponding placeholders, for each of the one or more suggestion templates, with a corresponding personalized identifier that is associated with the given user to generate the one or more candidate suggestions. ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 8,
Emura further discloses: wherein populating the one or more corresponding placeholders with the corresponding personalized identifier that is associated with the given user comprises: accessing a user profile of the given user, stored locally in the on-device storage of the in-vehicle computing device, to identify the corresponding personalized identifiers associated with the given user; and selecting the corresponding personalized identifiers to populate each of the one or more corresponding placeholders based on a type of each of the one or more corresponding placeholders and based on the user profile of the given user. ([0009] The generator generates presentation information by applying the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors to an output template corresponding to one automation level selected by the automation level determination section in output templates corresponding to the automation levels defined at the plurality of stages respectively. The output unit outputs the presentation information generated by the generator. [0053] Automation level determination section 90 receives the histogram, namely, the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior from histogram generator 84, and specifies the automation level based on the plurality of kinds of driving behaviors and the accumulated value corresponding to each driving behavior).
Regarding claim 11: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13: Rejected using the same rationale as the combination of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 14: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1, however additionally directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, which is further disclosed by Emura: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0011] Any desired combinations of the above described components and the features in which the representation of the present invention is converted between the devices, systems, methods, programs, non-transitory recording media having the programs recorded on the non-transitory recording media, vehicles having the present device mounted on the vehicles, or other entities are still effective as other aspects of the present invention.)
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura et al. (US20190071101, referred to as Emura) in view of Allen et al. (US9537811, referred to as Allen) and further in view of Bao (CN104484430, referred to as Bao).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Emura and Allen teaches: The method of claim 1,
Allen does not explicitly teach: wherein the duration of time is provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle of the given user.
The combination of Emura and Allen does not teach the following limitations, however Bao, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: wherein the duration of time is provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle of the given user. ([pg.4, lines 12-16] the method for a kind of OEM information customization of the present invention, convenient management, described OEM information is divided into manufacturer's information and the first product information, can not omits OEM information after obtaining OEM information by information acquisition unit; And packing is sent to described manufacturer's information storage unit and product information storage unit respectively)
Emura, Allen, and Bao are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle display and processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the suggestion output unit of Emura and Allen to utilize the OEM specifications taught in Bao.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide standardized display unit specifications to the vehicles using the display.
Regarding claim 19: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/ /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Examiner, Art Unit 3658A