s-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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 26th, 2026. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendments filed June 26th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; and maintains the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 26th, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 1, as put forth on pages 8-9 of applicants’ arguments, they have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the feature that the vehicle-function management device determines whether the vehicle is in the specific area based on both GNSS positional information and position determination data acquired by short-range wireless communication…Gummadi does not disclose this feature….Thus, Gummadi is concerned with which privilege information or behavioral rules should apply when a UE moves from one geographic region to another. Applicant recognizes that Gummadi mentions positioning and wireless communication. For example, Gummadi paragraph [0039] states that “Satellites 110 may be utilized for positioning of the UE 105.” Gummadi paragraph [0048] also states that an RSU may communicate with the UE and “may be used to determine position of the UE 105.” However, these disclosures do not teach the claimed double confirmation. Gummadi does not disclose acquiring position determination data by short-range wireless communication with a wireless communication device installed in the specific area indicated by certificate data and then using that position determination data together with GNSS position information to decide whether to change a vehicle function setting.
With respect to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As admitted by Applicant Gummadi does disclose that both satellites and RSUS can be used to determine the position of a UE. Applicant claims Gummadi does not disclose the information of the RSUs and Satellites being used in combination to determine the position. Gummadi at paragraph [0042] states “The estimated location of the UE 105 can be estimated geometrically (e.g., using multiangulation and/ or multilateration), based on the distance and/or angle measurements, along with known position of the one or more components,” the one or more components stated in this paragraph are known to include both the satellites and the RSUs ([0042]; “one or more components in the communication system 100 (e.g., GNSS satellites 110, APs 130, base stations 120)”. Thus, the limitation of determining whether a vehicle is in a location based on satellites and position determination data from a wireless communication device (RSU) is taught by Gummadi and the Examiner maintains the corresponding rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 1, as put forth on pages 9 of applicants’ arguments, they have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Gummadi’s fig. 7 also does not teach the claimed feature. Gummadi paragraph [0143] describes “determining, by a wireless node within a first geographical region, a presence of user equipment (UE) within a communication range of the wireless node.” Gummadi paragraph [0146] then describes “sending, by the wireless node, privilege information to the UE”. This is a determination by a wireless node that a UE is within a communication range so that privilege information can be sent. It is not a determination, by a vehicle function management device, based on both GNSS positional information and position determination data acquired by short-range wireless communication, that the vehicle is in the specific area indicated by the certificate data before changing a setting of a function of the vehicle”.
With regards to point (b), see point (c). While the specific embodiment cited by Applicant teaches only using the RSU information to determine the location of the UE, the specification of Gummadi still renders obvious that a combination of the RSU data with satellite data can be used to determine the vehicle’s position within the specified area.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 2-12, as put forth on page 9 of applicants’ arguments, they have been fully considered. Applicant argues “The dependent claims depend from amended independent claim 1 and add further limitation thereto. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are respectfully requested.
As to point (c), see point (a) and (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US-20250287183 (hereinafter, “Gummadi”).
Regarding claim 1 Gummadi discloses a vehicle-function management device configured to be applied to a vehicle (see at least [0033]; “FIG. 1 is a simplified illustration of a communication system 100 in which a UE 105, location server 160, and/or other components of the communication system 100 can use the techniques provided herein for communicating with wireless nodes, e.g., to handle privileges while changing geographic regions, according to an embodiment,” the communication system manages UE privileges, the privileges are equivalent to Applicant’s vehicle functions), the vehicle-function management device comprising:
one or more processors (see at least [0006]; “In another aspect of the present disclosure, a non-transitory computer-readable apparatus is disclosed. In some embodiments, the non-transitory computer-readable apparatus includes a storage medium, the storage medium having instructions configured to, when executed by one or more processors, cause a user equipment (UE) to…”); and
a storage medium storing program to be executed by the one or more processors (see at least [0006]; “In another aspect of the present disclosure, a non-transitory computer-readable apparatus is disclosed. In some embodiments, the non-transitory computer-readable apparatus includes a storage medium, the storage medium having instructions configured to, when executed by one or more processors, cause a user equipment (UE) to…”),
wherein the program comprises one or more instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to perform (see at least [0006]; “In another aspect of the present disclosure, a non-transitory computer-readable apparatus is disclosed. In some embodiments, the non-transitory computer-readable apparatus includes a storage medium, the storage medium having instructions configured to, when executed by one or more processors, cause a user equipment (UE) to…”),
acquire certificate data (see at least [0028]; “UEs (such as a UE aboard a vehicle as discussed above) may be given special privileges or restrictions depending on which geographical region the vehicle is. Such privileges and restrictions may be obtained from an authority governing the geographical region. A base station (such as a "roadside unit" or "RSU") may use V2X communication to send or receive privilege information (e.g., contained in a privilege certificate) with the UE. The UE and the vehicle may be configured such that the vehicle abides by behavioral rules set out in the privilege information”) comprising specific area information indicating a specific area and function setting information indicating a setting of a function of the vehicle in the specific area (see at least [0075]; “Examples of privileges and restrictions accorded to a vehicle may include usage of a special lane (e.g., ambulance lane, carpool lane with one person riding the vehicle, exclusive lanes that non-privileged vehicles can access), higher or lower speed limits, or enhanced traffic rules (e.g., traffic light turns green when the UE arrives to skip the wait, or the UE waits a lesser amount of time). This may be beneficial to certain users, such as tourists or temporary visitors, emergency personnel (e.g., ambulance drivers, paramedics, doctors), VIPs (e.g., diplomats, government officials, public officials), or someone who purchases the privilege certificate,” one of the many examples of privileges listed in Gummadi is the ability to manage speed limit),
acquire GNSS positional information of the vehicle (see at least [0048]; “The UE 105 illustrated in Fig. 1 may correspond to a component or device on a vehicle,” and [0039]; “Satellites 110 may be utilized for positioning of the UE 105 in one or more ways. For example, satellites 110 (also referred to as space vehicles (SVs)) may be part of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)”),
acquire, by short-range wireless communication with a wireless communication device installed in the specific area (see at least [0045]; “V2X is a communication standard for vehicles and related entities to exchange information regarding a traffic environment. V2X can include vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication between V2X-capable vehicles, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication between the vehicle and 3/13/2026 14:59:09 infrastructure-based devices (commonly termed roadside units (RSUs))…Such a vehicular communication network may employ communications allocated to the 5.9 GHz wireless spectrum, e.g., dedicated short range (DSRC) or C-V2X” the RSU correspond to a wireless communication device) indicated by the specific area information, position determination data, the position determination data being data for determining that the vehicle is present in the specific area (see at least [0042]; “As previously noted (and discussed in more detail below), the estimated location of UE 105 may be based on measurements of RF signals sent from and/or received by the UE 105. In particular, these measurements can provide information regarding the relative distance and/or angle of the UE 105 from one or more components in the communication system 100 (e.g., GNSS satellites 110, APs 130, base stations 120). The estimated location of the UE 105 can be estimated geometrically (e.g., using multiangulation and/ or multilateration), based on the distance and/or angle measurements, along with known position of the one or more components,” the RF signals sent from the base station include distance information to aid in determining that the vehicle was within said base stations area);
determine whether the vehicle is in the specific area indicated by the specific area information based on both the GNSS positional information and the position determination data (see at least [0033]; “Generally put, the communication system 100 can estimate a location of the UE 105 based on RF signals received by and/or sent from the UE 105 and known locations of other components (e.g., GNSS satellites 110, base stations 120, APs 130) transmitting and/or receiving the RF signals,” and [0042]; “The estimated location of the UE 105 can be estimated geometrically (e.g., using multiangulation and/ or multilateration), based on the distance and/or angle measurements, along with known position of the one or more components,” the RF signals sent from the base station include distance information to aid in determining that the vehicle was within said base stations area, another component is additionally a GNSS satellite, both these components are used to determine the UE’s overall position); and
change the setting of the vehicle in accordance with the function setting information in response to determining, based on both the GNSS positional information and the position determination data, that the vehicle is in the specific area indicated by the specific area information (see at least [0033]; “Generally put, the communication system 100 can estimate a location of the UE 105 based on RF signals received by and/or sent from the UE 105 and known locations of other components (e.g., GNSS satellites 110, base stations 120, APs 130) transmitting and/or receiving the RF signals,” [0086]; “once the UE (e.g., of the vehicle 301) exits the communication range 320 of the RSU 308b of the first geographical region 302, the new geographical region (e.g., the second geographical region 304) would control the privileges and restrictions of the UE aboard the vehicle 301. In some implementations,” and [0083]; “In some implementations, the RSU 310b may send the privilege information after the vehicle 301 is within a certain distance within the communication range 322, which may indicate that the vehicle 301 is physically within the geographic region the RSU 310b is in, or indicate a likelihood of it,” once the position is determined as being within the new geographical region the features of the vehicle can be changed based on said regions privileges ).
Regarding claim 2 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gummadi does not disclose wherein the to the setting of the function of the vehicle includes one or more of disabling a speed limiter function, disabling an ABS function, disabling a steering assist function, disabling a driving support function, enabling a data logging function, enabling a valet key mode, and enabling an accelerator-map change function are performed (see at least [0084]; “As an example, an old jurisdiction ( e.g., governing the first geographical region 302) may allow a speed limit of 50 miles per hour (MPH), and a new jurisdiction (e.g., governing the second geographical region 304 the vehicle 301 is entering) may mandate the speed limit to 30 MPH,” the speed limit can be adjusted based on the geographical region, and [0089]; “In some embodiments, no new privilege information may be received upon entry into a geographical region (e.g., 302 or 304) or into a communication range (e.g., 320 or 322). That is, there may not be any special privileges or limitations under some jurisdictions,” when moving from one area with a speed limit restriction to an area with no limitations, the speed limiter function would be disabled).
Regarding claim 3 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gummadi discloses wherein the certificate data is acquired by the short-range wireless communication with the wireless communication device installed in the specific area indicated by the specific area information (see at least [0048]; “In embodiments in which V2X is used, the static communication/positioning device 145-3 (which may correspond with an RSU) and/or the vehicle 145-2, therefore, may communicate with the UE 105 and may be used to determine the position of the UE 105 using techniques similar to those used by base stations 120 and/or APs 130 (e.g., using multiangulation and/or multilateration),” and [0045]; “Such a vehicular communication network may employ communications allocated to the 5.9 GHz wireless spectrum, e.g., dedicated short range (DSRC) or C-V2X” the RSU corresponds to a wireless communication device installed in a specific area).
Regarding claim 4 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gummadi discloses wherein the certificate data further comprises expiration date information regarding the change to the setting of the function of the vehicle (see at least [0076]; “In some cases, one or more of the privileges may last a prescribed amount of time. In some cases, one or more of the privileges may terminate upon reaching other condition(s). For instance, the vehicle leaves a designated area (e.g., moves from one geographical region to another), the vehicle goes over speed thresholds, the vehicle is involved in a traffic violation, or the like”), and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to terminate a state in which the setting of the vehicle has been changed when a date and time indicated by the expiration date information has been exceeded (see at least [0086]; “In some implementations, a user interface associated with the vehicle 301 or the UE installed in the vehicle 301 may indicate the new privileges and restrictions, as well as any times, durations, or countdowns before new privileges and restrictions must be followed,” the time until the new privileges must be implemented would constitute an expiration time for the previous privileges, and once that time is reached those privileges are terminated).
Regarding claim 5 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Gummadi discloses wherein the certificate data further comprises expiration date information regarding the change to the setting of the function of the vehicle, and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed when a date and time indicated by the expiration date information has been exceeded (see at least [0086]; “In some implementations, a user interface associated with the vehicle 301 or the UE installed in the vehicle 301 may indicate the new privileges and restrictions, as well as any times, durations, or countdowns before new privileges and restrictions must be followed,” the time until the new privileges must be implemented would constitute an expiration time for the previous privileges, and once that time is reached those privileges are terminated)..
Regarding claim 6 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Gummadi discloses wherein the certificate data further comprises expiration date information regarding the change to the setting of the function of the vehicle, and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed when a date and time indicated by the expiration date information has been exceeded (see at least [0086]; “In some implementations, a user interface associated with the vehicle 301 or the UE installed in the vehicle 301 may indicate the new privileges and restrictions, as well as any times, durations, or countdowns before new privileges and restrictions must be followed,” the time until the new privileges must be implemented would constitute an expiration time for the previous privileges, and once that time is reached those privileges are terminated).
Regarding claim 12 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gummadi discloses wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to determine whether the vehicle is inside or outside the specific area indicated by the specific area information based further on image processing of images of a surrounding environment captured by a camera mounted on the vehicle (see at least [0154]; “The UE 105 can further include sensor(s) 840. Sensor(s) 840 may comprise, without limitation, one or more inertial sensors and/or other sensors (e.g., accelerometer(s), gyroscope(s), camera(s), magnetometer(s), altimeter(s), microphone(s), proximity sensor(s), light sensor(s), barometer(s ), and the like), some of which may be used to obtain position-related measurements and/or other information.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummadi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of JP-2007088737A (hereinafter, “Takeuchi”).
Regarding claim 7 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gummadi does not disclose wherein the certificate data further comprises effective-distance information indicating a limit of a travel distance for maintaining the change to the setting of the function of the vehicle, and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to calculate a travel distance of the vehicle after the setting of the function has been changed, determine whether the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance indicated by the effective-distance information, and terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed in response to determining that the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance.
Takeuchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the certificate data further comprises effective-distance information indicating a limit of a travel distance for maintaining the change to the setting of the function of the vehicle (see at least [0089]; “Furthermore, the regional certificate storage unit 44 may store the cumulative mileage at the time the regional certificate was last obtained or stored. The cumulative mileage is the distance that vehicle 4 has traveled up to that point and can be obtained from the odometer or other sources. By storing the cumulative mileage in this way, it becomes possible to compare the cumulative mileage at the time the regional certificate was stored with the current cumulative mileage and calculate the mileage since obtaining or storing the regional certificate. Furthermore, when deleting regional certificates, the one with the longest mileage since its acquisition or storage should be deleted. It is thought that the longer the distance traveled after obtaining a regional certificate, the less likely it is that the certificate will be used. Therefore, by doing as described above, it becomes possible to retain regional certificates that are likely to be used,” as long as the certificate is the newest it is maintained, once it is no longer the newest it can be deleted), and
wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to calculate a travel distance of the vehicle after the setting of the function has been changed (see at least [0089]; “Furthermore, the regional certificate storage unit 44 may store the cumulative mileage at the time the regional certificate was last obtained or stored. The cumulative mileage is the distance that vehicle 4 has traveled up to that point and can be obtained from the odometer or other sources. By storing the cumulative mileage in this way, it becomes possible to compare the cumulative mileage at the time the regional certificate was stored with the current cumulative mileage and calculate the mileage since obtaining or storing the regional certificate”), determine whether the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance indicated by the effective-distance information, and terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed in response to determining that the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance (see at least [0089]; “Furthermore, when deleting regional certificates, the one with the longest mileage since its acquisition or storage should be deleted. It is thought that the longer the distance traveled after obtaining a regional certificate, the less likely it is that the certificate will be used. Therefore, by doing as described above, it becomes possible to retain regional certificates that are likely to be used,” as long as the certificate is the newest it is maintained, once it is no longer the newest it can be deleted, it would be obvious that if the certificate is deleted the functions associated with the certificate are also terminated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle privilege management system of Gummadi with distance travelled restriction of Takeuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making it possible to retain the regional certificates that are most likely to be used (see at least Takeuchi; [0087]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummadi in view of Takeuchi, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of US-20240377834 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8 Gummadi in view of Takeuchi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 7. Gummadi does not disclose wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to, before terminating the state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed, determine whether the vehicle is stopped when the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance, and terminate the state after determining that the vehicle is stopped.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to, before terminating the state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed, determine whether the vehicle is stopped when the calculated travel distance exceeds the limit of the travel distance, and terminate the state after determining that the vehicle is stopped (see at least [0090]; “As shown in Table 2, when the current location of the vehicle 100 moved by the manual driving of the second user 142 is out of the area set by the movement range restriction policy, the control authority management device 280 may forcibly stop the vehicle 100 by executing brake override. The control authority management device 280 may notify the outside that the vehicle 100 is forcibly stopped by blinking the emergency light of the vehicle 100. The control authority management device 280 may notify the second user 142 through the user interface device 210 that the vehicle is stopped due to violation of the movement range restriction policy,” prior to terminating the control authority of the second user it is determined whether the vehicle has exited the restricted range and is still driving, the vehicle is brought to a safe stop and the control of the second user is terminated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle privilege management system of Gummadi with state termination condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing dangerous driving in autonomous parking garages (see at least Kim; [0148]).
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummadi, as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, in view of US-20230377834 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 9 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gummadi does not disclose wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to determine whether the vehicle is outside the specific area indicated by the specific area information after the setting of the function has been changed, perform warning processing when it is determined that the vehicle is outside the specific area, determine whether the vehicle is stopped within a predetermined time after the warning processing, and terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed after determining that the vehicle is stopped.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to determine whether the vehicle is outside the specific area indicated by the specific area information after the setting of the function has been changed, perform warning processing when it is determined that the vehicle is outside the specific area, determine whether the vehicle is stopped within a predetermined time after the warning processing, and terminate a state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed after determining that the vehicle is stopped (see at least [0090]; “As shown in Table 2, when the current location of the vehicle 100 moved by the manual driving of the second user 142 is out of the area set by the movement range restriction policy, the control authority management device 280 may forcibly stop the vehicle 100 by executing brake override. The control authority management device 280 may notify the outside that the vehicle 100 is forcibly stopped by blinking the emergency light of the vehicle 100. The control authority management device 280 may notify the second user 142 through the user interface device 210 that the vehicle is stopped due to violation of the movement range restriction policy,” prior to terminating the control authority of the second user it is determined whether the vehicle has exited the restricted range and is still driving, the vehicle is brought to a safe stop and the control of the second user is terminated and the blinking of the emergency light corresponds to the warning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle privilege management system of Gummadi with state termination condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing dangerous driving in autonomous parking garages (see at least Kim; [0148]).
Regarding claim 10 Gummadi in view of Kim renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform standby operation control to cause the vehicle to stop when the vehicle is not stopped within the predetermined time after the warning processing, and terminate the state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed after determining that the vehicle is stopped by the standby operation control (see at least [0090]; “As shown in Table 2, when the current location of the vehicle 100 moved by the manual driving of the second user 142 is out of the area set by the movement range restriction policy, the control authority management device 280 may forcibly stop the vehicle 100 by executing brake override. The control authority management device 280 may notify the outside that the vehicle 100 is forcibly stopped by blinking the emergency light of the vehicle 100. The control authority management device 280 may notify the second user 142 through the user interface device 210 that the vehicle is stopped due to violation of the movement range restriction policy,” and [0118]; “The control authority management device 280 may control the user interface device 210 to display a warning message indicating that the vehicle 100 leaves the area,” it would be obvious that the warning could be provided before stopping the vehicle to provide a user with the chance to reenter into the permitted driving area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle privilege management system of Gummadi with state termination condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing dangerous driving in autonomous parking garages (see at least Kim; [0148]).
Regarding claim 11 Gummadi discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Gummadi discloses date and time indicated by the expiration date information (see at least [0076]; “In some cases, one or more of the privileges may last a prescribed amount of time. In some cases, one or more of the privileges may terminate upon reaching other condition(s). For instance, the vehicle leaves a designated area (e.g., moves from one geographical region to another), the vehicle goes over speed thresholds, the vehicle is involved in a traffic violation, or the like”).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to, before terminating the state in which the setting of the function of the vehicle has been changed, determine whether the vehicle is stopped when the…expiration…information has been exceeded, and terminate the state after determining that the vehicle is stopped (see at least [0090]; “As shown in Table 2, when the current location of the vehicle 100 moved by the manual driving of the second user 142 is out of the area set by the movement range restriction policy, the control authority management device 280 may forcibly stop the vehicle 100 by executing brake override. The control authority management device 280 may notify the outside that the vehicle 100 is forcibly stopped by blinking the emergency light of the vehicle 100. The control authority management device 280 may notify the second user 142 through the user interface device 210 that the vehicle is stopped due to violation of the movement range restriction policy,” prior to terminating the control authority of the second user it is determined whether the vehicle has exited the restricted range and is still driving, the vehicle is brought to a safe stop and the control of the second user is terminated and the blinking of the emergency light corresponds to the warning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle privilege management system of Gummadi with state termination condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing dangerous driving in autonomous parking garages (see at least Kim; [0148]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/1/26
Prosecution Insights