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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues, see applicant’s remarks, pages 5-8, that the prior art Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr does not teach “selecting applicable setting items from among a plurality of setting items that define settings in accordance with the type of recognition method used” (See Applicant’s Remarks, page 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zaidan teaches where “each vehicle function”, or setting item, “is assigned a security level that is representative of how sensitive the driver's data is that is used to perform the vehicle function”, where the functions are defined as “non-safety-critical vehicle functions” or “safety-critical vehicle functions” (Zaidan, Para. 0012-0014), where each “identification signal” provided by each “identification device” is associated with a “confidence level”, or degree of reliability, and where “vehicle functions are enabled up to a security level that corresponds to the confidence level” (Zaidan, Para. 0012, 0033-0034, 0046-0061), such that Zaidan teaches the limitation “each setting item of the plurality of setting items is associated with an evaluation value that indicates a user privacy level and a degree of impact on vehicle safety” and selecting applicable setting items from among a plurality of setting items that define settings in accordance with the type of recognition method used. Furthermore, Abou-Nasr teaches a “controller” which makes adjusts vehicle settings based on a “confidence level” of a driver identity, where the adjustment of vehicle settings is done “automatically” (Abou-Nasr, Para. 0002, 0015, 0023, 0027-0035), such that Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr teaches the pending claim limitations.
The applicant presents an argument that Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr does not teach “providing each setting item with its own privacy and safety evaluation axes, and then selecting the applicable setting items to be applied that "have a greater influence on safety of the vehicle" and are associated with evaluation values indicating greater user privacy levels as the degree of reliability of the one recognition method increases” (See Applicant’s Remarks, page 7). However, the examiner believes that the current claim language is unclear on whether the “evaluation value that indicates a user privacy level and a degree of impact on vehicle safety” is indicative of “privacy and safety evaluation axes”, or separate privacy and safety evaluation values, as argued by the applicant. The examiner suggests clarifying that each of the setting items are assigned separate privacy and safety evaluation values, and further clarifying that the limitation “a selectable range of evaluation values based on the degree of reliability” is related to the privacy level, separate and/or distinct from the safety level.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 of the amended claim reads “…is associated with a degree of reliability of each recognition method…” appears to have an incorrect indentation or spacing following the word “with”, which should be removed.
Additionally, in claim 1, line 12 of the amended claim limitations appears to have an incorrect line break before the line, based on applicant’s remarks reciting the amended claim limitations, see applicant’s remarks, page 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidan, et al. (German Patent Application Pub. No. 10 2019 119 052 A1) in view of Abou-Nasr, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0101783).
Regarding Claim 1, Zaidan teaches: An information processing device that a “device for releasing vehicle functions of a vehicle” such as “seat position”, “mirror position”, “radio stations”, “assistance or driving dynamics settings”, etc.; where the device is “control device 11” mounted on the vehicle, see Fig. 1 below), the information processing device comprising a processor (Zaidan, Para. 0025-0028, 0031, 0053 – the “control device 11” for executing a “procedure for releasing vehicle functions of the vehicle” associated with “a computer program” including “instructions” which, “when the computer program is executed by a computer”, known in the art to have a processor, “cause it to carry out the procedure”) configured to
recognize the user by one recognition method of a plurality of different kinds of recognition methods (Zaidan, Para. 0020-0023, 0030-0031, 0053-0054 – identifying a passenger of a vehicle by “an identification signal” provided by “at least one of the identification devices”, such as “an interior camera”, “biometric sensors”, “a mechanical vehicle key”, “a digital key”, etc.), and
select applicable setting items to be assigning a “confidence level” or “trust rating” based on “identification signal[s]” provided by “at least one of the identification devices”, for example, if a passenger carries “the physical vehicle key with the corresponding digital key”, the passenger gains access to “security level L1”, wherein “vehicle functions are enabled up to a security level that corresponds to [a] confidence level” determined based on “weighting”; where functions include vehicle settings such as “seat position or mirror position, comfort settings”, etc. saved in a “driver's account”), wherein
each recognition method of the plurality of different kinds of recognition methods is associated with a degree of reliability of each recognition method, used to recognize the user is associated with each of the different recognition methods (Zaidan, Para. 0008, 0056-0061 – a “weighting is determined depending on the respective device providing the identification signal”, wherein a “confidence level”/”trust rating” percentage, or degree of reliability, is determined based on the weighting; an exemplary embodiment lists a “physical vehicle key” enables access to “security level L1” functions, a “digital key” enables access to “security level L2”, etc. but does not necessarily proceed in the order, as the “identification signal” can be provided by any of “identification devices 12-17’”)
each setting item of the plurality of setting items is associated with an evaluation value that indicates a user privacy level and a degree of impact on vehicle safety (Zaidan, Para. 0012-0014, 0045 – “Each vehicle function is assigned a security level that is representative of how sensitive the driver's data is that is used to perform the vehicle function” and where the vehicle functions are defined as “non-safety-critical vehicle functions” or “safety-critical vehicle functions”), and
the processor (Zaidan, Para. 0025 – “computer”) is further configured to
set a selectable range of evaluation values based on the degree of reliability that is associated with the one recognition method used to recognize the user (Zaidan, Para. 0012, 0033-0034, 0046-0061 – assigning a “confidence level” or “trust rating” based on “identification signal[s]” provided by “at least one of the identification devices”, where the “confidence level” is associated with a “security level”, wherein “vehicle functions are enabled up to a security level”, i.e. a range up to the determined security level);
select the applicable setting items to be applied to the in-vehicle device from among the setting items based on the degree of reliability of the one recognition method, and the selectable range of evaluation values (Zaidan, Para. 0012-0014, 0033-0034, 0046-0061 –each “identification signal” provided by each “identification device” is associated with a “confidence level”, or degree of reliability, and where “vehicle functions are enabled up to a security level that corresponds to the confidence level”, i.e. a range up to the determined security level); and
apply the applicable setting items that (i) have a greater influence on safety of the vehicle as the degree of reliability of the recognition method increases (Zaidan, Para. 0012, 0030 – where the “vehicle functions”, such as “driver assistance”, which can be enabled are assigned “a safety level”, such as “non-safety-critical vehicle functions” and “safety-critical vehicle functions”, which are enabled or locked based on a determined “confidence level”, or degree of reliability) and (ii) fall within the selectable range of evaluation values to the in-vehicle device (Zaidan, Para. 0012 – “vehicle functions are enabled up to a security level that corresponds to the confidence level”, where the range is every level up to the security level corresponding to the confidence level).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zaidan, Fig. 1
While Zaidan teaches an information processing device that releases (or enables) a setting related to a user to an in-vehicle device, and select applicable setting items to be released (or enabled) to the in-vehicle device, Zaidan does not specifically teach an information processing device that applies a setting related to a user to an in-vehicle device, and select applicable setting items to be applied to the in-vehicle device.
However, Abou-Nasr teaches an information processing device that applies a setting related to a user to an in-vehicle device (Abou-Nasr, Para. 0002, 0015, 0023, 0027-0035 – a “controller” of a system, which makes adjusts, or applies, vehicle settings based on a “confidence level” of a driver identity, where the adjustment of vehicle settings is done “automatically”; wherein “vehicle settings” may be “a station” of a vehicle “radio system”, “seat position”, etc.), and select a setting item to be applied to the in-vehicle device (Abou-Nasr, Para. 0002, 0015, 0023, 0027-0035 – adjusting, or applying, vehicle settings based on a “confidence level” of a driver identity, where the adjustment of vehicle settings is done “automatically”; wherein “vehicle settings” may be “a station” of a vehicle “radio system”, “seat position”, etc.).
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 information processing device of Zaidan to include an information processing device that applies a setting related to a user to an in-vehicle device, and select applicable setting items to be applied to the in-vehicle device, as taught by Abou-Nasr, in order to improve an in-vehicle experience and comfort of the user.
In regards to Claim 3, Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr further teaches wherein as the degree of reliability of the recognition method increases, the user privacy level indicated by the evaluation value associated with each setting item of the applicable setting items to be applied by the processor also increases (Zaidan, Para. 0045-0061 – where based on the “security level” vehicle functions are enabled, where the security level is “representative of how sensitive”, or private “the driver's data is that is used to perform the vehicle function”; where “security level” is determined based on a “confidence level” or reliability; Abou-Nasr, Para. 0002, 0015, 0023, 0027-0035 – a “controller” of a system, which adjusts, or applies, vehicle settings “automatically”).
In regards to Claim 5, Zaidan in view of Abou-Nasr teaches the information processing device of Claim 1, and Zaidan further teaches wherein the recognition method is selected from the following recognition methods
electronic key recognition (Zaidan, Para. 0022 – a “physical (radio) vehicle key”), digital key recognition (Zaidan, Para. 0032 – “digital key”), recognition by a Bluetooth (registered trademark) device, biometric recognition (Zaidan, Para. 0020 – “biometric sensors”), and recognition based on an input operation by the user (Zaidan, Para. 0032, 0036 – prompting “the driver to authenticate, for example by entering a password”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oh (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0001826) teaches a user authentication device and method for providing a security level varying based on an authentication score of biometric information when providing an authentication-based service in an autonomous driving vehicle.
Kingsbury, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0050700) teaches a method including obtaining biometric data of a user, determining whether or not the biometric data matches biometric data of a known user, and adjusting a vehicle setting based on the biometric data of the user.
Sing, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2025/0222945) teaches a system for detecting a first identity of a first occupant of a vehicle, retrieving a first occupant profile, wherein the first occupant profile comprises a first vehicle setting, detecting a second identity of a second occupant of the vehicle, retrieving a second occupant profile, wherein the second occupant profile comprises a second vehicle setting, adjusting vehicle settings according to the first and second profiles, and applying the vehicle settings to the vehicle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights