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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0352066 A1) in view of Annasagaram Krishnamurthy (US 10,491,734 B1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a system onboard a vehicle, comprising: a passenger identification component 210, 230 (see figure 5) that identifies a passenger inside the vehicle and determines in which seat the passenger is sitting (see paragraph [0038]); a device identification component 220 that identifies a device of the passenger and determines a pairing status of the device (see paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056]); and a pairing component 240 that, in response to the determined pairing status, to adjust the pairing status of the device (see paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056]).
Kim fails to disclose a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in memory; and prompting the passenger to adjust the pairing status of the device. Annasagaram Krishnamurthy discloses a memory that stores computer executable components (see column 12 lines 48-53); and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in memory (see column 12 lines 48-53); and prompting the passenger to adjust the pairing status of the device (see column 11 lines 40-45; column 11 line 52 to column 12 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Annasagaram Krishnamurthy to Kim, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the weight, size, implementing cost of the system, and providing an user-friendly pairing procedure.
As to claim 2, Kim discloses that the pairing component adjusts the pairing status of the device. See paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056].
As to claim 3, Kim discloses that the device identification component determines that the device is paired with the vehicle. See paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056].
As to claim 4, Kim discloses that the device identification component determines that the device is not paired with the vehicle. See paragraph [0041] which discloses that the device is not paired with the vehicle when the device is initially woken up.
As to claim 5, the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy discloses that the pairing component prompts the passenger to pair the device with the vehicle. See Annasagaram Krishnamurthy, column 11 lines 40-45; column 11 line 52 to column 12 line 3.
As to claim 6, Kim discloses that the passenger identification component uses visual sensors to identify the passenger or determine in which seat the passenger is sitting. See Kim, paragraph [0081] which discloses visual sensors such as cameras.
As to claim 7, the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy discloses identifying a passenger inside the vehicle (see Kim, paragraphs [0038], [0044]).
As to claim 8, the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy discloses determining in which seat the passenger is sitting (see Kim, paragraphs [0038], [0044]).
As to claim 9, the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy discloses identifying a device of the passenger and determine a pairing status of the device (see Kim, paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056]).
However, the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy fails to disclose an artificial intelligence component as recited in claims 7-9. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such an artificial intelligence component is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of an artificial intelligence component to the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy, in order to yield predictable results such as increased efficiency, enhanced decision-making, and improved accuracy.
As to claim 10, Kim fails to disclose that the passenger identification component determines that a passenger has exited the vehicle. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Kim and Annasagaram Krishnamurthy, such that the passenger identification component determines that a passenger has exited the vehicle, in order to yield predictable results such as disconnecting Bluetooth connection earlier.
As to claim 11, Kim discloses that the passenger identification component determines that a passenger has entered the vehicle. See Kim, paragraph [0040] which discloses “For instance, the terminal detection sensor 120 may detect whether the terminal of the user is located in the vehicle in a case that a door of the vehicle is closed after being opened”.
As to claim 12, Kim discloses that the passenger identification component determines that a passenger has changed seats (see Kim, paragraph [0044]).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0352066 A1) in view of Rajanna (US 2025/0390167 A1).
As to claim 13, Kim discloses a computer-implemented method performed by a data processing device of a vehicle, comprising: identifying one or more passengers inside the vehicle (see paragraph [0038]) and determining in which seats the one or more passengers are sitting (see paragraphs [0038], [0044]); identifying a device paired to the vehicle (see paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056]).
Kim fails to disclose determining an intent of at least one of the passengers; and adjusting a parameter of the paired device, based upon the determined intent. Rajanna discloses determining an intent of at least one of the passengers (see paragraph [0052] which discloses “occupant’s gaze” that reads on the claimed “an intent”); and adjusting a parameter of the paired device, based upon the determined intent (see paragraph [0052] which discloses “In such an embodiment, for example, the control circuitry may generate a signal to the infotainment center display to decrease the volume of the music”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Rajanna to Kim, in order to yield predictable results such as improving conversation quality between the driver and passenger.
As to claim 14, Kim discloses using a visual sensor to identify the one or more passengers or to determine in which seat the at least one or more passengers are sitting. See paragraph [0081] which discloses visual sensor such as camera.
As to claim 15, the combination of Kim and Rajanna discloses adjusting a volume setting of the paired device. See Rajanna, paragraph [0052] which discloses “In such an embodiment, for example, the control circuitry may generate a signal to the infotainment center display to decrease the volume of the music”.
As to claim 16, Kim fails to disclose determining that a passenger has exited the vehicle. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Kim and Rajanna, such that the passenger identification component determines that a passenger has exited the vehicle, in order to yield predictable results such as disconnecting Bluetooth connection earlier.
As to claim 17, Kim discloses determining that a passenger has entered the vehicle. See Kim, paragraph [0040] which discloses “For instance, the terminal detection sensor 120 may detect whether the terminal of the user is located in the vehicle in a case that a door of the vehicle is closed after being opened”.
As to claim 18, Kim discloses determining that a passenger has changed seats (see Kim, paragraph [0044]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Kim and Rajanna discloses that the determined intent of the at least one passenger is to communicate with another passenger within the vehicle. See Rajanna, paragraph [0052] which discloses “For example, if a driver and passenger are both in the vehicle, the music is somewhat loud, and the driver and passenger have started to talk, a very brief look at the infotainment center display (less than a half second) combined with sound data from the microphone which indicates the vehicle occupants are trying to speak to each other, the control circuitry may determine that the brief look at the infotainment center display is a settled gaze based on the context data and the length of the gaze. In such an embodiment, for example, the control circuitry may generate a signal to the infotainment center display to decrease the volume of the music”.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 13 as set forth above. The combination of Kim and Rajanna further discloses “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” 1020 (see Rajanna, paragraph [0085]; see also paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon (US 2018/0130449 A1) discloses a system onboard a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights