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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/020,011, filed on 14 January 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 27 April 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kassner et al. (US 2019/0294427 A1, “Kassner”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Kassner discloses a device for assisting a user of a transportation vehicle and teaches:
receiving data from sensors on a vehicle, wherein the data is associated with an internal environment of the vehicle and characteristics of an occupant of the vehicle (sensor-based fatigue detection – see at least ¶ [0022]); and
installing new functionality within the vehicle based on the received data (driver-condition recommendations based – see at least ¶ [0022]; field 13 displays additional applications, e.g., suggestions, which can be downloaded by touching them – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0024]), wherein the installing comprises updating one or more of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of the vehicle to display information about one or more existing features and one or more new features included in the new functionality installed within the vehicle (field 13 displays additional applications, e.g., suggestions, which can be downloaded by touching them – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0024]; apps installed by driver displayed in application field 12 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0024]).
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.
Claim 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner in view of Frye et al. (US 2018/0065642 A1, “Frye”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Kassner discloses that downloadable software packages may comprise applications related to transportation vehicle functions, e.g., interior functions (¶ [0014]). However, Kassner fails to explicitly teach those functions related to a seat feature.
However, Frye discloses a vehicle seat and teaches:
determining a level of discomfort by the occupant seated in the vehicle based on the received data (control system is configured to receive and process the occupant-body signals and the behavioral signals to determine occupant health data and occupant state data such as, for example, comfort and stress – see at least ¶ [0004]); and
determining a feature is not enabled for the occupant, wherein the installing comprises displaying, on the GUI of the vehicle and the GUI of a device associated with the occupant, a request to accept a seat feature, accepting the seat feature, and enabling the seat feature until the vehicle reaches a destination (recommend activating vehicle system to improve wellness or comfort – see at least Fig. 11B and ¶ [0020], [0035]; vehicle system 78 may be activated manually by occupant 13 in response to the recommendation – see at least ¶ [0037]; control system 16 activates vehicle system 78 based on the health data, state data, and input from the occupant – see at least ¶ [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for assisting a user of a transportation vehicle to determine discomfort, determine a feature, and install the feature, as taught by Frye, with a reasonable expectation of success, because activating the vehicle system may improve the comfort and wellbeing of the occupant.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0282132 A1, “Bostick”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Kassner discloses that downloadable software packages may comprise applications related to navigation functions, e.g., interior functions (¶ [0011], [0014]). However, Kassner fails to explicitly teach the navigation functions determining the vehicle is traveling on a route to a destination; determining one or more of an amount of time or distance reduction is possible if the vehicle travels on a different route; and displaying on the GUI of the vehicle an amount of improvement to the destination by making an unused feature available.
However, Bostick discloses predictive navigation and teaches:
determining the vehicle is traveling on a route to a destination (at 308, determination of whether the device is at the destination or still en route is made – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0049]); determining one or more of an amount of time or distance reduction is possible if the vehicle travels on a different route (at 310, traffic data is received, at 314 a determination additional time for current route based on traffic data, and at 316 alternatie routes having a shorter time are suggested – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0052]); and displaying on the GUI of the vehicle an amount of improvement to the destination by making an unused feature available (alternative routes suggested to user, including time saved – see at least ¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for assisting a user of a transportation vehicle to determine that the vehicle is traveling on a route, determine a time or distance reduction, and display the improvement, as taught by Bostick, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help the user identify alternative routes to avoid traffic (Bostick at ¶ [0009]).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner in view of Boos (US 2017/0177959 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Kassner further teaches:
wherein the receiving comprises capturing an image of behavior performed by the occupant in the vehicle (optical camera can take pictures of operator/user and submit them for image analysis – see at least ¶ [0012]), and the installing comprises [ ] requesting, through the GUI of a device associated with the occupant, a download of a [ ] feature (suggestion of software package for downloading – see at least ¶ [0015]).
Kassner fails to teach displaying, by the GUI of the vehicle, the image of the behavior.
However, Boos discloses a method for outputting a drowsiness warning and teaches:
capturing an image of behavior performed by the occupant in the vehicle (driver observation camera 104 to record a sequency of images of eye area 108 – see a tleast ¶ [0028]);
displaying, by the GUI of the vehicle, the image of the behavior (sequence of images reproduced on display device 110 using display signal 118 so that driver 106 is able to observe him/herself in display unit 110 – see at least ¶ [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for assisting a user of a transportation vehicle to provide a feature that captures an image of behavior and displays the image of behavior, as taught by Boos, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the driver to observe him/her self in order to see how long he/she closes his/her eyes or how tired he/she appears (Boos at ¶ [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights