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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A mobility control apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of account information, each corresponding to a respective user account of a plurality of user accounts;
and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying, based on a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment;
and executing the function by using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of user accounts, the first account information corresponding to the first user account in which the function is executable, wherein the driving environment includes at least one of a section associated with an operation of the mobility, an area associated with the operation of the mobility, or a time associated with the operation of the mobility.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying, based on a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification, such as a function to be executed in the driving environment. A user identifying is a mental process, and therefore recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitation of “using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of user accounts” in the context of the claim encompasses the user using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of accounts. Since using the data from an account can be done in the mind (i.e. a mental process), then this limitation recites an abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claim 11.
Claim 2:
segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user segmenting an driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections. Since this limitation can be done by dividing a route and/or a map, which can be done with pen/paper, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 12.
Claim 3:
based on a destination being identified, identifying the driving section to be travelled by the mobility from a starting point at which the operation of the mobility will be initiated to the destination.
Regarding claim 3, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying the driving section from a starting point to a destination). Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 13.
Claim 4:
identifying, based on user input requesting account switching being received, second account information corresponding to the user input, while the mobility is in motion, and switching to a second user account corresponding to the user input, based on identifying the second account information
Regarding claim 4, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying second account information corresponding to a user input), and switching to a different account based on the identification. Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), and wherein switching accounts can be done on paper, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 14.
Claim 6:
identifying, based on a requirement being determined according to the driving environment, the function to be executed in the driving environment.
Regarding claim 6, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying the function to be executed in the environment). Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 16.
Claim 7:
identifying the requirement based on at least one of at least one sensor included in the mobility, first map information stored in the mobility, or second map information received from a device different from the mobility.
Regarding claim 7, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an identification (i.e. identifying a requirement). Since this limitation can be done in the mind (i.e. identifying), then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 17.
Claim 8:
assigning master account permission to the first user account corresponding to the first account information.
Regarding claim 8, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user assigning master account permission to the first user account. This can be done on a piece of paper by assigning data for a master account. Since this limitation can be done on a piece of paper and pen, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 18.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A mobility control apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of account information, each corresponding to a respective user account of a plurality of user accounts;
and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying, based on a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment;
and executing the function by using first account information based on a first user account being identified among the plurality of user accounts, the first account information corresponding to the first user account in which the function is executable, wherein the driving environment includes at least one of a section associated with an operation of the mobility, an area associated with the operation of the mobility, or a time associated with the operation of the mobility.
Claim 2:
segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable.
Claim 9:
executing the function based on the first user account to which the master account permission is assigned.
Claim 10:
executing the function based on logging into an application using the first account information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “executing the function by…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, merely executing a function by using data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the comparing and determining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “obtaining… “, and “receiving…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “executing the function” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the primary reference SCOFIELD CHRISTOPHER WO2015134376A1 discloses “executing the function” in Para. 0027-0029. Accordingly, the step of executing a function based on data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOFIELD CHRISTOPHER WO2015134376A1 (henceforth Christopher) in view of Penilla et al. US20160318481A1 (henceforth Penilla) and Cardona et al. US20230076648A1 (henceforth Cardona).
Regarding Claim 1,
Christopher discloses:
A mobility control apparatus, comprising: a plurality of user profile information, each corresponding to a respective user profile of a plurality of user profiles; (See at least Para. 0025, “ the driving profile and/or the driving preference may be provided from a remote preference provider to the automated driving component. The remote preference provider may be hosted on a cloud-based server, a mobile device of the user (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet, a smart watch, etc.), and/or an in-vehicle human machine interface“ and Para. 0020, “by maintaining driving profiles on a remote preference provider, users may be able to efficiently store, update, and/or transfer custom driving profiles“. The plurality profiles can be provided by the in-vehicle human machine interface.)
and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: identifying, based on a driving environment of a mobility, a function to be executed in the driving environment; (See at least Para. 0028, “a set of operational parameters may be generated based upon a set of driving preferences within the driving profile. A priority value may be determined for individual operational parameters within the set of operational parameters (e.g., operational parameters are assigned a priority value based upon the importance of the operational parameters to the user). The operational parameters within the set of operational parameters may be ranked to generate a ranked set of operational parameters. In an example, the operational parameters may be ranked based upon their priority value. The autonomous vehicle may be operated based upon the ranked set of operational parameters. For example, responsive to a maximum speed limit operational parameter being ranked higher than a right lane operational parameter, the automated driving component may direct the autonomous vehicle into the left lane as a result of a second vehicle traveling in the right lane at a speed under the speed limit.” A function of the vehicle is executed (i.e. directing the autonomous vehicle into the left lane) based on a driving environment of a mobility (e.g. as a result of a second vehicle traveling in the right lane).)
and executing the function by using first account information based on a first user profile being identified among the plurality of user profiles, the first profile information corresponding to the first user profile in which the function is executable, (See at least Para. 0027, “At 106, an operational parameter for the autonomous vehicle may be generated based upon the driving preference”, Para. 0028, “In an example, a set of operational parameters may be generated based upon a set of driving preferences within the driving profile” and Para. 0029, “At 108, the autonomous vehicle may be operated based upon the operational parameter”. The function of the vehicle is executed based on the first user account among the plurality of user accounts.)
wherein the driving environment includes at least one of a section associated with an operation of the mobility, an area associated with the operation of the mobility, or a time associated with the operation of the mobility. (See at least Para. 0027, wherein the driving environment includes a section associated with an operation of the mobility and an area associated with the operation of the mobility.)
Christopher discloses user profiles and does not specifically state a user account. However, Penilla teaches:
user accounts
(See at least Para. 0077, “provide access to user accounts and access to settings, configurations, applications and other customization defined by the user.” User accounts are provided such that settings and configurations are accessed by the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “user accounts” such that “a parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school” (Para. 0095, Penilla). Setting up restrictions for a child account would provide a more robust and safe route for the child, such that the vehicle can only be used to drive between home and school. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Christopher does not specifically state a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of user profile information.
However, Cardona teaches:
a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of user profile information
(See at least Fig. 2, Program memory 208, which includes Data Storage 228. See Para. 0084, “The data storage 228 may include data such as user profiles and preferences”. The user profile information is stored in a memory 208 that is configured to store instructions and a plurality of user profile information.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Cardona to include “a memory configured to store instructions and a plurality of user profile information” such that “accounting for region-specific driver profiles when controlling autonomous vehicles may be provided” (Para. 0015, Cardona), such that an “autonomous control profile for a vehicle based on the model driver profile for the region” can be updated (Para. 0015, Cardona). Furthermore, it would create a more robust system to have the user account information in storage of the vehicle, such that a profile can be used/updated offline. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Cardona. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,Christopher does not specifically state wherein the operations comprise: segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable. However, Penilla teaches:
wherein the operations comprise: segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable.
(See at least Para. 0076, 0088, and 0091. Para. 0095 further discloses “A parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school. A map can be outlined on the account management interface by a parent when setting up the child's login to support the home to school restriction intended.” A map is segmented such that the login for the child excludes driving out of the range between home and school.
Additional, see Para. 0100, “In this case User 1 has created a role that is applied to User 2, which only allows the vehicle to travel within certain restrictions and geographical locations.” And Para. 0104, wherein the login is setup (i.e. which includes segmenting the map with restrictions) before the mobility is in motion.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “wherein the operations comprise: segmenting an identified driving section of the mobility into a plurality of sub-sections, before the mobility is in motion; and executing, based on the mobility entering each of the plurality of sub-sections, a function corresponding to the sub-section to which the mobility enters by using a corresponding account information in which the function is executable” such that “a parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school” (Para. 0095, Penilla). Setting up restrictions for a child would provide a more robust and safe route for the child, such that the vehicle can only be used to drive between home and school. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,Christopher does not specifically state wherein the operations comprise: based on a destination being identified, identifying the driving section to be travelled by the mobility from a starting point at which the operation of the mobility will be initiated to the destination. However, Penilla teaches:
wherein the operations comprise: based on a destination being identified, identifying the driving section to be travelled by the mobility from a starting point at which the operation of the mobility will be initiated to the destination.
(See at least Para. 0095 further discloses “A parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school. A map can be outlined on the account management interface by a parent when setting up the child's login to support the home to school restriction intended.” A map is segmented such that the login for the child excludes driving out of the range between home (i.e. a starting point) and school (i.e. a destination).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “wherein the operations comprise: based on a destination being identified, identifying the driving section to be travelled by the mobility from a starting point at which the operation of the mobility will be initiated to the destination.” such that “a parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school” (Para. 0095, Penilla). Setting up restrictions for a child would provide a more robust and safe route for the child, such that the vehicle can only be used to drive between home and school. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Christopher discloses:
wherein the function includes at least one of a driving assistance function of the mobility, an autonomous driving function of the mobility, a function for providing a user of the mobility with media content, a function associated with charging of the mobility, or a function for receiving traffic information for indicating a position of the mobility. (See at least Para. 0027, “the operational parameter may be utilized to determine a response for the autonomous vehicle as a result to a change in a driving condition (e.g., determine an amount of braking necessary to maintain a tailgating distance in response to a change in speed of a second vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle, determine a speed adjustment to safely operate the autonomous vehicle in response to a change in weather, determine a speed adjustment in response to a change in speed limit along a route, etc.).” The function includes at least a driving assistance function of the mobility.)
Regarding claim 6,
Christopher discloses:
identifying, based on a requirement being determined according to the driving environment, the function to be executed in the driving environment.
(See at least Para. 0027, “the operational parameter may be utilized to determine a response for the autonomous vehicle as a result to a change in a driving condition (e.g., determine an amount of braking necessary to maintain a tailgating distance in response to a change in speed of a second vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle, determine a speed adjustment to safely operate the autonomous vehicle in response to a change in weather, determine a speed adjustment in response to a change in speed limit along a route, etc.).” A function to be executed in the driving environment is identified based on a requirement (i.e. a tailgating distance requirement and a speed limit along the route).)
Regarding claim 7,
Christopher discloses:
identifying the requirement based on at least one of at least one sensor included in the mobility, first map information stored in the mobility, or second map information received from a device different from the mobility.
(See at least Para. 0033, “heart rate data of the user collected at various points along the route may be indicative of an optimal tailgating distance for the user (e.g., heartrate data illustrating the user's heartrate was 60 bpm when the tailgating distance was 35 feet and 120 bpm when the tailgating distance was 10 feet, which may be indicative that the user prefers the 35 foot tailgating distance)”. The requirement is based on the heart rate data of the driver (i.e. a sensor included in the mobility). Additionally, see Para. 0030-0031)
Regarding claim 8,
Christopher does not specifically state assigning master account permission to the first user account corresponding to the first account information.
However, Penilla teaches:
assigning master account permission to the first user account corresponding to the first account information. (See at least Para. 0100, since the master user of the vehicle can have a master account with administrator credentials, then that incudes assigning master account permission.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “assigning master account permission to the first user account corresponding to the first account information” such that “a vehicle owner with the role of “administrator” (e.g., an administrator of a user account that has a profile associated therewith or multiple/sub profiles) can create logins for his or her vehicle(s) for additional users such as his or her children, spouse, mechanic, and valet driver among other applications. Logins can be created for individuals or for roles such as the role of “child” where all users with the role “child” would have the same vehicle specifications applied to the vehicle they will be logging into” (Para. 0109, Penilla). Setting up restrictions via a master account for a child would provide a more robust and safe route for the child, such that the vehicle can only be used to drive between home and school. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9,
Christopher does not specifically state executing the function based on the first user account to which the master account permission is assigned.
However, Penilla teaches:
executing the function based on the first user account to which the master account permission is assigned. (See at least Para. 0100 and Fig. 3, wherein a function is executed using the first account, wherein User 1 (i.e. the administrator) is the first user account.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “executing the function based on the first user account to which the master account permission is assigned” such that “a parent can set up a login to the family vehicle for their child that only allows the child to drive within a certain radius. For example the vehicle may only be used to drive between home and school” (Para. 0095, Penilla). Furthermore, executing the function based on a master account permission would create a more robust system for executing the vehicle function. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Christopher does not specifically state wherein the operations comprise: executing the function based on logging into an application using the first account information. However, Penilla teaches:
wherein the operations comprise: executing the function based on logging into an application using the first account information
(See at least Para. 0009, “Logins can be created for individuals or for roles such as the role of “child” where all users with the role “child” would have the same vehicle specifications applied to the vehicle they will be logging into.” And Para. 0111, “Logins can have “role” specific settings and privileges or settings and privileges set only by the administrator that cannot be overridden by the user of the login. For instance, an administrator may create a login for “John” their 16-year-old son. The administrator can apply settings to John's login that John cannot override such as the maximum speed the vehicle can travel. For instance, Although the vehicle may have the ability to travel at a speed of 130 mph, John's login will only allow the vehicle to travel at a speed up to 90 mph.” The function is executed (i.e. how fast the vehicle can go) based on logging in to the application.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Penilla to include “wherein the operations comprise: executing the function based on logging into an application using the first account information” such that “a vehicle owner with the role of “administrator” (e.g., an administrator of a user account that has a profile associated therewith or multiple/sub profiles) can create logins for his or her vehicle(s) for additional users such as his or her children, spouse, mechanic, and valet driver among other applications. Logins can be created for individuals or for roles such as the role of “child” where all users with the role “child” would have the same vehicle specifications applied to the vehicle they will be logging into” (Para. 0109, Penilla). Setting up restrictions via a master account for a child would provide a more robust and safe route for the child, such that the vehicle can only be used to drive between home and school. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Penilla. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-20,
All limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus as recited in claims 1-3 and 5-10 above. The method disclosed in claims 11-13 and 15-20, can clearly perform the apparatus of claims 1-3 and 5-10. Therefore claims 11-13 and 15-20, are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher, Cardona, and Penilla further in view of Kwatra et al. US20220153300A1 (henceforth Kwatra).
Regarding claim 4,
Christopher discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Christopher does not specifically state the limitation “wherein the operations comprise: identifying, based on user input requesting account switching being received, second account information corresponding to the user input, while the mobility is in motion, and switching to a second user account corresponding to the user input, based on identifying the second account information”. However, Kwatra teaches:
wherein the operations comprise: identifying, based on user input requesting account switching being received, second account information corresponding to the user input, while the mobility is in motion, and switching to a second user account corresponding to the user input, based on identifying the second account information. (See at least the abstract “the approach can dynamically adjust the driving style during the trip based on the reaction and feedback from the passenger” and Para. 0046, “autonomous vehicle component 111, through analysis component 214 adjusts the driving setting of the AV based on the stress level of the passengers. For example, autonomous vehicle component 111 continuously measures the current stress level of the passengers against their baseline stress level. If the stress level increases then autonomous vehicle component 111 can adjust the driving setting by selecting a less aggressive driving profile.” A second profile (i.e. a less aggressive profile than the first) is used when the mobility is in motion and when a user input (i.e. heart rate sensor data) indicates that the profile needs to be switched.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christopher to incorporate the teachings of Kwatra to include “wherein the operations comprise: identifying, based on user input requesting account switching being received, second account information corresponding to the user input, while the mobility is in motion, and switching to a second user account corresponding to the user input, based on identifying the second account information” since “negative impact on passenger confidence in safety and further resulted in a not comfortable, stressful riding experience. For some passengers, the stress level might exceed the psychological and physical threshold and thus, create health risk factors for riders” (Para. 0013, Kwatra). This would create a more safe and comfortable riding experience for the passengers. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Christopher and Kwatra. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Christopher, Cardona, Penilla, and Kwatra discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scofield et al. US20170015318A1 discloses while a user operates a vehicle in a driving context, a device monitors various driving features (e.g., acceleration or braking) to determine various user driving behaviors. When requested to control a driving feature of the vehicle, a controller may identify the user driving behaviors of the user in the driving context, and control the driving features according to the user driving behaviors, thus personalizing automated driving to the preferences of the user. (See Abstract)
Nojoumian US20190129422A1 discloses determining at least one autonomous driving rule for a particular driving style setting of a plurality of driving style setting options based on the machine-learned driving habits of the person; programming the particular driving style setting using the at least one autonomous driving rule; and causing the vehicle to enforce the at least one autonomous driving rule when the particular driving style setting is selected. (See abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669