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 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a mental process without significantly more.
The Examiner will now proceed through the two-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2106 on claim 6 (the present claim) to illustrate how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is directed toward the judicial exception. However, the other independent and dependent claims are also directed to a judicial exception unless otherwise specified.
Firstly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the present claim is as a vehicle comprising various parts (wheels, a frame, and seats) including a controller.
Regarding Step 1, the present claim is directed to a device because it describes parts and their functions. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A, the present claim recites a judicial exception because it is (1) directed to an abstract idea; and (2) it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The present claim is (1) directed to an abstract idea, particularly a mental process. A mental process is any concept that could be interpreted as being performed by the human mind or by a human mind with a physical aid. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the following claim limitations are able to be performed by a human in their mind or with a pen and piece of paper:
“ . . . determining that the location of the vehicle corresponds to being within a geographic region . . . .”
This determination, as broadly recited, could be performed by a human with knowledge of the vehicle’s location. For example, a human could know that a vehicle is located in a particular city, state, or other region. Therefore, the claim is directed to a mental process because of the high level of generality with which the limitations are recited, and analysis proceeds to step (2).
The present claim also (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In a computing environment, a mental process may be integrated into a practical application where the claim goes “beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment . . . .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Here, the generic recitation of
“ . . . a controller, the controller comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to perform a set of operations . . . “
does not appear to the Examiner as more than generally linking the mental process defined in step 2A to being generally performed by a computer. Nor does recitation of
“ . . . a frame;
one or more seats enclosed by the frame;
a plurality of wheels operably coupled to the frame; . . . ,“
because this also does not appear to be more than generally linking the mental process to the environment of a vehicle comprising these components.
Therefore, the present claim does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The present claim reciting to a mental process generically applied on computer hardware, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements of computer components to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when, considered as a whole, the claim appears to be “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The additional element of
“in response to the determination, enabling a vehicle mode based on the corresponding geographic region”
could be broadly interpreted as enabling any vehicle mode, including vehicle modes that would amount to insignificant extra-solution activity specified in MPEP 2106.05. For example, the limitation could be interpreted to require the claimed invention to merely present gathered data (like the vehicle’s location with respect to the geofence) on a display or merely send a signal rather than perform positive control. As noted in MPEP 2106.05, mere display of data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of performing processes on a computer, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim. Further, the limitation could be interpreted as performed by a human who enables the mode. Therefore, the present claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that while the above analysis was applied to claim 6 in particular, further steps recited in the other independent and dependent claims all feature similar issues that bar them from being considered eligible subject matter unless specified below.
Claim 14 appears to overcome the § 101 rejection because it specifies that enabling the low SPL mode means that the system reduces the RPM of the vehicle engine. This is a positive control step that integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 appears to overcome the § 101 rejection because it specifies that enabling the low SPL mode means controlling baffles in the exhaust. This is a positive control step that integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”).
Regarding claim 1, Muetzel discloses a method for configuring a low-speed vehicle (LSV) mode of an off-road vehicle (ORV) (Muetzel [0020]: “However, vehicle 155 may take any number of forms, including, . . . all-terrain vehicle (ATV) . . . ”), the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a location of the ORV (Muetzel [0027]: “On-board device 120 also includes locator interface 145. Locator interface 145 may be a GPS receiver that is able to receive transmissions from GPS satellites providing the vehicle with a means to determine its location on the earth.”);
determining that the location of the ORV corresponds to being within a geofence (Muetzel Claim 1: “A location-based drive strategy selection system comprising: an input configured to receive a location of a vehicle; and a processor in communication with the input, the processor configured to select a drive strategy based on a geo zone in which the vehicle is located . . . .”); and
in response to the determination, enabling the LSV mode of the ORV (Muetzel Claim 6: “ . . . wherein the drive strategy includes a target operating parameter of the vehicle.”; Muetzel Claim 7: “wherein the target operating parameter of the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of speed . . . .” See also [0036]. The geo zone can assign a limit to speed. This is taken as a low speed vehicle mode.).
Regarding claim 2, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geofence corresponds to a municipality with one or more LSV regulations, and wherein the LSV mode defines a set of vehicle restrictions corresponding to the one or more LSV regulations of the municipality (Muetzel [0042]: “As described above, the drive strategies prescribed by a geo zone may be imposed on vehicles traveling in the geo zone. Use of a drive strategy may be enforced by local, state, or federal law enforcement officials.” Enforcement of the drive strategy by law enforcement in a certain political geofence taken as imposing vehicle restrictions corresponding to the law of a municipality.).
Regarding claim 3, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a restriction of the set of vehicle restrictions includes a maximum allowable speed of the ORV based on the one or more LSV regulations (Muetzel [0036]: “ . . . [A] geo zone may not permit speeds . . . to exceed a limit.”).
Regarding claim 4, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more LSV regulations are stored in a database of LSV regulations that are each mapped to a corresponding geofence, each corresponding geofence being further associated with a respective municipality (Muetzel [0029]-[0030]: “Onboard device 120 may determine the geo zone of the vehicle 155 by searching a database of geo zones using the GPS coordinates. The geo zones may be based on political boundaries, such as city, county, or state limits.” Understood from claims 1, 6, and 7 as well as [0036] and [0042] that the geo zones may represent enforceable regulations associated with a municipality.).
Regarding claim 12, Muetzel discloses a method for configuring a low sound pressure level (SPL) mode of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a location of the vehicle (Muetzel [0020]: “However, vehicle 155 may take any number of forms, including, . . . all-terrain vehicle (ATV) . . . ”);
determining that the location of the vehicle corresponds to being within a geofence (Muetzel Claim 1: “A location-based drive strategy selection system comprising: an input configured to receive a location of a vehicle; and a processor in communication with the input, the processor configured to select a drive strategy based on a geo zone in which the vehicle is located . . . .”); and
in response to the determination, enabling the low SPL mode of the vehicle (Muetzel Claim 6: “ . . . wherein the drive strategy includes a target operating parameter of the vehicle.”; Muetzel Claim 7: “ . . . wherein the target operating parameter of the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of . . . noise . . . .”).
Regarding claim 13, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the geofence corresponds to a municipality with one or more vehicle SPL regulations, and wherein the low SPL mode is configured based on the one or more vehicle SPL regulations of the municipality (Muetzel [0019]: “For example, a vehicle at a location X within geo zone A may select a drive strategy that forces the vehicle to generate less noise during operation by prohibiting the use of engine brakes.”; Muetzel [0030]: “The geo zones may be based on political boundaries, such as city, county, or state limits.”).
Regarding claim 16, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more vehicle SPL regulations are stored in a database of vehicle SPL regulations which are mapped to corresponding geofences, the corresponding geofences being associated with respective municipalities (Muetzel [0029]-[0030]: “Onboard device 120 may determine the geo zone of the vehicle 155 by searching a database of geo zones using the GPS coordinates. The geo zones may be based on political boundaries, such as city, county, or state limits.” Understood from claims 1, 6, and 7 as well as [0036] and [0042] that the geo zones may represent enforceable regulations associated with a municipality.).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the indication is a first indication, wherein the location is a first location (Muetzel FIG. 4: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an initial location determination as a first indication of location.), wherein the geofence is a first geofence location (Muetzel FIG. 4: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an initial geozone determination as a first geofence location.), wherein enabling the low SPL mode comprises enabling a first configuration of the low-noise mode location (Muetzel FIG. 4, Claim 7: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an initial drive strategy implementation as a first noise requirement, knowing that one of the parameters that could be restricted in a geo zone is noise.), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second indication of a second location of the vehicle (Muetzel FIG. 4: The flowchart shows that the drive strategy selection method repeats itself. A subsequent time s420 of the method repeats taken as the second indication of the second location.);
determining that the second location of the vehicle corresponds to being within a second geofence (Muetzel FIG. 4, [0033]: “The advantage of the location-based drive strategy selection system is that different drive strategies may be selected and used for vehicle 155 as it travels through geographical areas having different levels of tolerance or allowance of certain effects of vehicle operation.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in the case the system enters another geographical area, s430 of the determination will find the vehicle is in a subsequent geo zone, taken as a second location corresponding to a second geofence.); and
in response to the determination, enabling a second configuration of the low SPL mode of the ORV (Muetzel FIG. 4, Claim 7: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a subsequent drive strategy implementation as a second noise requirement, knowing that one of the parameters that could be restricted in a geo zone is noise.).
Regarding claim 19, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the determination is performed onboard the vehicle (Muetzel [0029]: “On-board device 120 may use the GPS coordinates of vehicle 155 to determine which geo zone vehicle 155 may be located within.”).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8464824 B1 to Reisenberger, Christian et al. (“Reisenberger”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”).
Regarding claim 6, Reisenberger teaches a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
a frame (Reisenberger FIGS 1-3: Frame 12.);
one or more seats enclosed by the frame (Reisenberger FIGS 1-3: Seats 18 depicted enclosed within the frame.);
a plurality of wheels operably coupled to the frame (Reisenberger FIGS 1-3: Front/rear wheels 14.); and
a controller (Reisenberger FIG. 16: Control unit 88.).
Reisenberger does not appear to expressly teach the controller comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving an indication of a location of the vehicle;
determining that the location of the vehicle corresponds to being within a geographic region; and
in response to the determination, enabling a vehicle mode based on the corresponding geographic region.
However, Muetzel teaches the controller comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving an indication of a location of the vehicle (Muetzel [0027]: “On-board device 120 also includes locator interface 145. Locator interface 145 may be a GPS receiver that is able to receive transmissions from GPS satellites providing the vehicle with a means to determine its location on the earth.”);
determining that the location of the vehicle corresponds to being within a geographic region (Muetzel Claim 1: “A location-based drive strategy selection system comprising: an input configured to receive a location of a vehicle; and a processor in communication with the input, the processor configured to select a drive strategy based on a geo zone in which the vehicle is located . . . .”); and
in response to the determination, enabling a vehicle mode based on the corresponding geographic region (Muetzel Claim 6: “ . . . wherein the drive strategy includes a target operating parameter of the vehicle.”; Muetzel Claim 7: “wherein the target operating parameter of the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of speed . . . .” See also [0036]. The geo zone can assign a limit to speed. This is taken as a low speed vehicle mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the off-road vehicle with controller of Reisenberger with the controller for off-road vehicles that enables a speed or noise mode based on geographic region of Muetzel. Doing so would have improved user convenience by allowing the vehicle to automatically comply with speed or noise restrictions without further user intervention.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel teaches the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the vehicle mode comprises at least one of a low-speed vehicle (LSV) mode (Muetzel Claim 6: “ . . . wherein the drive strategy includes a target operating parameter of the vehicle.”; Muetzel Claim 7: “wherein the target operating parameter of the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of speed . . . .” See also [0036]. The geo zone can assign a limit to speed. This is taken as a low speed vehicle mode.) or a low sound pressure level (SPL) mode (Muetzel Claim 7: “ . . . wherein the target operating parameter of the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of . . . noise . . . .” The geo zone can assign a noise requirement. This is taken as a low sound pressure level mode.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8464824 B1 to Reisenberger, Christian et al. (“Reisenberger”) in view of US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”), further in view of US 20200047742 A1 to Jobson, Edward et al. (“Jobson”).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel teaches the vehicle of claim 6.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of operations further comprises: determining the vehicle mode, based on historical data of what vehicle modes operators use within the geographic region.
However, Jobson teaches wherein the set of operations further comprises: determining the vehicle mode, based on historical data of what vehicle modes operators use within the geographic region (Jobson [0087]: “Before the bus 501 enters the low noise, zone 511 an ECU of the bus may access/retrieve historical data from a database regarding use of high noise devices . . . of the bus 501 . . . and/or other vehicles provided that they have completed a passage through the zone 511 and uploaded the information to the database. . . . an analysis of all the data may be performed in order to determine which adaptations of operating parameters are to be done in order to prepare for a passage through the low noise zone 511.” Adapting operating parameters for the low noise zone taken as entering a low noise mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system that limits vehicle noise when entering a geo zone with noise limitations of the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel with the system that consults historical data of other vehicles limiting noise in a region with noise limitations to decide how to limit noise of Jobson. Doing so would have improved the ability of the system to adapt to particular restrictions in a zone by adapting strategies used by other vehicles..
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8464824 B1 to Reisenberger, Christian et al. (“Reisenberger”) in view of US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”), further in view of US 20190155307 A1 to Hille, David et al. (“Hille”).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel teaches the vehicle of claim 6.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the vehicle further comprising an in-vehicle display, wherein the set of operations further comprises:
displaying a graphical user interface via the in-vehicle display; and
receiving, via the graphical user interface, input defining a geofence for the geographic region, the input comprising an assignment of the vehicle mode to the geofence.
However, Hille teaches the vehicle further comprising an in-vehicle display (Hille [0041]: “The border 16 on a map is presented to the user via a map display 20 on for example a handheld device or on a display on the vehicle 18.”), wherein the set of operations further comprises:
displaying a graphical user interface via the in-vehicle display (Hille [0039]: “The user drops gps or location waypoints 17, onto the input device screen to create a boundary or border 16. The user can define the max allowable top speed on the inside of the boundary and the maximum allowable speed outside of the border 16.”); and
receiving via the graphical user interface, input defining a geofence for the geographic region (Hille [0052]: “As shown at process steps 31-36, the application is executable on a computing device and including program instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the computing device to, receive a user first input defining a border in a geographic region and a first speed on a first side of the border and a second speed on a second side of the border. The border is presented on a map to the user via a map display, including display of the first and second speeds.”), the input comprising an assignment of the vehicle mode to the geofence (Hille [0052]: “As shown at process steps 31-36, the application is executable on a computing device and including program instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the computing device to, receive a user first input defining a border in a geographic region and a first speed on a first side of the border and a second speed on a second side of the border. The border is presented on a map to the user via a map display, including display of the first and second speeds.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the vehicle with system that uses geozones to define vehicle modes of the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel with the interface for defining geographical regions where vehicle speed limiting modes are active of Hille. Doing so would have improved system versatility by providing users the ability to customize the geo zones.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8464824 B1 to Reisenberger, Christian et al. (“Reisenberger”) in view of US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”), further in view of US 11192548 B2 to Magolan, Allen et al. (“Magolan”).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel teaches the vehicle of claim 6.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the vehicle mode comprises a lighting mode of the vehicle.
However, Magolan teaches wherein the vehicle mode comprises a lighting mode of the vehicle (Magolan [17:10-13]: “Additionally or alternatively, if the geofenced area is a residential neighborhood or the like, a headlight intensity may be reduced, wherein the headlight intensity may include an angular range and/or a brightness.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the vehicle that can control noise output based on noise regulations in a geo zone of the above combination of Reisenberger and Muetzel with the vehicle system that can control headlight brightness and angular range based on the area in which the vehicle is located of Magolan. Doing so would have reduced the impact of the vehicle by automatically reducing headlamp brightness in residential areas.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20060173593 A1 to Anderson, Noel (“Anderson”).
Regarding claim 14, Muetzel teaches the method of claim 13.
While teaching limiting the RPM of an engine in response to the entry of a geo-zone, Muetzel does not appear to expressly teach wherein the enabling the low SPL mode comprises reducing rotations-per-minute (RPM) of an engine of the vehicle.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the enabling the low SPL mode comprises reducing rotations-per-minute (RPM) of an engine of the vehicle (Anderson [0025]: “In step S306, a mode selector 24 or data processor 22 selects a mode of operation of the vehicle based on the determined present location of the vehicle, the established noise sensitive zone or zones, and the measured charge level. The mode of operation may be selected from a quiet mode and a charging mode. In the quiet mode, the internal combustion engine 34 is off or running at a sufficiently low revolutions-per-time (e.g., revolutions per minute) of the engine shaft (e.g., crankshaft) such that a noise output of the vehicle is less than or equal to a maximum noise level criteria.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system that controls a vehicle to operate with reduced noise based on a defined geo zone of Muetzel with the system that reduces engine RPM to meet lower noise requirements of a quiet zone of Anderson. Doing so would have improved the ability of the system to comply with noise regulations by giving it another means by which to reduce engine noise.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel as applied to claim 13 above, in view of US 11192548 B2 to Magolan, Allen (“Magolan”), and further in view of US 20210115824 A1 to Ayesh, Hani (“Ayesh”).
Regarding claim 15, Muetzel teaches the method of claim 13.
While teaching reducing the amount of noise in geo zones per requirements, Muetzel does not appear to expressly teach wherein the enabling the low SPL mode comprises actuating baffles in an exhaust of the vehicle, thereby muffling noise from the exhaust via the baffles.
However, Ayesh teaches wherein the enabling the low SPL mode comprises actuating baffles in an exhaust of the vehicle, thereby muffling noise from the exhaust via the baffles (Ayesh [0053]: “Further, the controller may operate the muffler system in the quiet mode if it is determined that the permissible sound levels at the location of the vehicle is lower than a threshold level . . . .”; Ayesh FIG. 4: When quiet mode is desired at 404, muffler system valves are closed, causing the exhaust to flow through the baffles. This is taken as actuating baffles in the exhaust.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the vehicle system that changes vehicle modes to match noise requirements of Muetzel with the system that actuates baffles to reduce noise to match the noise requirements of a quiet zone taught by Ayesh. Doing so would have further improved the system’s ability to comply with noise requirements by allowing it to modulate exhaust noise output.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20190155307 A1 to Hille, David et al. (“Hille”).
Regarding claim 20, Muetzel teaches the method of claim 12.
Muetzel does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising:
generating a visual representation of the geofence;
displaying the visual representation; and
editing the geofence, based on the visual representation.
However, Hille teaches the method further comprising:
generating a visual representation of the geofence (Hille FIG. 1: Hille depicts and discloses a geographical region displayed on a device. This is taken as displaying a visual representation.);
displaying the visual representation (Hille FIG. 1: Hille depicts and discloses a geographical region displayed on a device. This is taken as displaying a visual representation.); and
editing the geofence, based on the visual representation (Hille [0040]: “The user drops gps or location waypoints 17, onto the input device screen to create a boundary or border 16. . . . The border 16 can be created by connecting as few as three way points 17.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system that includes defined geo zones for vehicle usage restrictions of Muetzel with the system that allows a user to edit a defined geographic region by dropping multiple GPS or location waypoints on a screen of Hille. Doing so would have improved the versatility of the system and user convenience by allowing users to define custom areas in which vehicle operation is restricted.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8464824 B1 to Reisenberger, Christian et al. (“Reisenberger”) in view of US 20140379170 A1 to Muetzel, Ronald et al. (“Muetzel”) and US 20190155307 A1 to Hille, David et al. (“Hille”), further in view of US 20130154477 A1 to Wolski, Brian et al. (“Wolski”).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination of Reisenberger, Muetzel, and Hille teaches the vehicle of claim 9.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of operations further comprises:
determining at least one vehicle accessory requirement associated with the geofence;
receiving an indication of at least one accessory associated with the vehicle;
determining a compliance factor of the vehicle; and
enabling the vehicle mode based the corresponding geofence and the compliance factor.
However, Magolan teaches wherein the set of operations further comprises:
determining at least one vehicle accessory requirement associated with the geofence (Magolan [17:10-13]: “Additionally or alternatively, if the geofenced area is a residential neighborhood or the like, a headlight intensity may be reduced, wherein the headlight intensity may include an angular range and/or a brightness.” The area being a residential neighborhood leads to dimming of the headlights. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system determines that the headlights need to be dimmed in the residential area.);
determining a compliance factor of the vehicle (Magolan [17:10-13]: “Additionally or alternatively, if the geofenced area is a residential neighborhood or the like, a headlight intensity may be reduced, wherein the headlight intensity may include an angular range and/or a brightness.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that where the vehicle adjusts the headlight brightness for the residential neighborhood, the brightness is brought into compliance. Thus, the system must inherently determine a compliance factor of the headlight brightness to determine whether the brightness must be reduced. The Examiner notes that the Specification appears to require that the compliance factor be based in some way on the indication of the at least one accessory. Amendment of this claim to reflect that disclosure appears to overcome the art of record, pending further search and consideration.); and
enabling the vehicle mode based the corresponding geofence and the compliance factor (Magolan [17:10-13]: Dimming the headlights based on the fact that they are too bright for the residential neighborhood zone taken as enabling a “dim headlights” mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system that adapts vehicle modes to the requirements of different geofenced areas of the above combination of Reisenberger, Muetzel, and Hille with the system that adapts vehicle headlight brightness to conform to requirements of a geofenced residential area of Magolan. Doing so would have improved the versatility of the system by allowing it to adapt to more kinds of area regulations.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach receiving an indication of at least one accessory associated with the vehicle.
However, Wolski teaches receiving an indication of at least one accessory associated with the vehicle (Wolski Claim 7: “A method for re-enabling automatic mode after manually overriding automatic mode of an automatic headlamp control system for a motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: monitoring headlamp state in a controller . . . ” Wolski teaches monitoring a headlight state (broadly interpreted as receiving an indication of at least one accessory by the controller) to decide when to intuitively re-engage automatic headlight mode after a manual override by the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combine the system that controls vehicle modes taught by the above combination of Reisenberger, Muetzel, and Hille with the system that controls a vehicle automatic headlight mode re-engagement based on an indication of the headlight status taught by Wolski. Doing so would have improved the ability of the system to switch between various vehicle modes by offering it control over another vehicle mode.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160180721 A1 to Otulic, Ivan (“Otulic”).
Regarding claim 5, Muetzel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication is a first indication, wherein the location is a first location (Muetzel FIG. 4: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an initial location determination as a first indication of location.), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second indication of a second location of the ORV (Muetzel FIG. 4: The flowchart shows that the drive strategy selection method repeats itself. A subsequent time s420 of the method repeats taken as the second indication of the second location.);
determining that the second location of the ORV corresponds to being outside of the geofence (Muetzel FIG. 4, [0033]: “The advantage of the location-based drive strategy selection system is that different drive strategies may be selected and used for vehicle 155 as it travels through geographical areas having different levels of tolerance or allowance of certain effects of vehicle operation.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in the case the system enters another geographical area, s430 of the determination will find the vehicle is outside the initial geographical area by being inside another subsequent geozone at the subsequent time.).
Muetzel does not appear to expressly teach in response to the determination, disabling the LSV mode of the ORV.
However, Otulic teaches in response to the determination, disabling the LSV mode of the ORV (Otulic [0067]: “As seen in FIG. 4, a single geofence area may have two or more distinct regions, a first region 315 which is a first geozone and a second region 316; the second geozone. . . . Therefore, the parameters for geozone 315 . . . will have a maximum speed . . . lower than the maximum speed in geozone 316 . . . The parameters for the second geozone 316 are more in line with the recreational use . . . open throttle operation of a jet skis 1a-1e may be allowed.”; [0068]: “Generally, if module 6 of any respective jet ski 1a-1e senses that a particular jet ski is operating outside of the parameters, such as speeding in zone 315 or operating outside of geofence 300, it may send a signal to engine control unit 105 to lower the speed to within the permitted speed limit . . . .” Otulic teaches two geozones: one with a speed limit that limits the speed of the vehicle and the other that permits open throttle operation, taken as having no speed limit. Understood that when the vehicle crosses into the second geozone, the speed limiter is turned off. This is taken as disabling the LSV mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the vehicle system that limits speed in certain geo zones of Muetzel with the system that limits speed in one geozone and disables speed limiting outside of that geozone of Otulic. Doing so would have improved user safety and convenience by allowing them to enjoy their vehicle’s full speed where safe while restricting that speed where it is unsafe.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060173593 A1 to Anderson, Noel (“Anderson”).
Regarding claim 17, the above combination of Muetzel and Reisenberger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the indication is a first indication, wherein the location is a first location (Muetzel FIG. 4: The figure depicts a method that repeats itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an initial location determination as a first indication of location.), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second indication of a second location of the vehicle (Muetzel FIG. 4: The flowchart shows that the drive strategy selection method repeats itself. A subsequent time s420 of the method repeats taken as the second indication of the second location.);
determining that the second location of the vehicle corresponds to being outside of the geofence (Muetzel FIG. 4, [0033]: “The advantage of the location-based drive strategy selection system is that different drive strategies may be selected and used for vehicle 155 as it travels through geographical areas having different levels of tolerance or allowance of certain effects of vehicle operation.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in the case the system enters another geographical area, s430 of the determination will find the vehicle is outside the initial geographical area by being inside another subsequent geozone at the subsequent time.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach in response to the determination, disabling the low SPL mode of the vehicle.
However, Anderson teaches in response to the determination, disabling the low SPL mode of the vehicle (Anderson [0028]: “Under a first technique, the mode selector 24 selects the charging mode if the present location of the vehicle falls outside of the noise sensitive zones.” See [0025]-[0026], Anderson teaches selection of a charging mode, where an internal combustion engine may run at whatever loudness required, outside the noise sensitive zone. This is taken as disabling the low SPL mode. Anderson teaches a quiet mode where the internal combustion engine must run quietly inside the noise sensitive zone, taken as the low SPL mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the system that restricts the sound output of a vehicle based on geo zone regulations of Muetzel with the system that disables sound output restrictions when outside of a geo zone with sound regulations of Anderson. Doing so would have improved the versatility of the vehicle by allowing it to comply with sound regulations where needed while also allowing it to run as needed without regard to sound where no regulations exist.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sata, Andrew. US 10787174 B2. Automatic Vehicle Driving Mode System. A system for roadgoing vehicles that adapts driving modes based on the region in which it is located.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights