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 is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an execution unit” provided in claim 1
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (item a):
Specification – “… an execution device 91 that is a CPU… the execution unit is the execution device 91…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claim 1 recites the following information:
A generation device configured to generate a setting value set for collectively controlling a plurality of operation devices mounted on a vehicle, the setting value set including setting values for the operation devices, the generation device comprising:
a storage unit; and
an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to:
acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information;
store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit;
select, in the pieces of combination data stored in the storage unit, the vehicle environment information satisfying a predetermined selection condition among pieces of the vehicle environment information included in a plurality of the combinations;
identify the setting information satisfying a predetermined specific condition among pieces of the setting information in the combinations including the selected vehicle environment information; and
generate a plurality of the setting values included in the identified setting information as the setting value set in the vehicle environment indicated by the selected vehicle environment information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that gathers information obtained using sensors related setting information for vehicle equipment operated in vehicle environments and analyzes and sorts the obtained information to determine appropriate setting values for various vehicle equipment used depending on the vehicle environments that the settings were used in.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to gather information based on visual observation of displayed sensor data obtained while vehicle equipment is operated, take note of environment data that the vehicle equipment was operated in, and evaluate, sort, and organize the gathered information to determine appropriate vehicle equipment settings based on the gathered settings information for different vehicle environments.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
Claim 1 does contain additional elements of a generation device, a storage unit, and an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information and store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of a generation device, a storage unit, and an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information and store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle equipment setting customization system environment. The generation device, storage unit, and an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information and store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the vehicle equipment settings and environment information receiving, data storing, selecting, identifying, and generating of setting value components of the system. As for the additional elements specifying a generation device, storage unit, and an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information and store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit, the examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the acquiring vehicle settings and environment information, information storing, information selecting, and identifying steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a generation device, a storage unit, and an execution unit, wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information and store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of gathering/transmitting data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claim 1, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washington et al. US 9248793 B2 (“Washington”).
For claim 1, Washington discloses a generation device configured to generate a setting value set for collectively controlling a plurality of operation devices mounted on a vehicle, the setting value set including setting values for the operation devices (See at least Abstract – “… The apparatus can also include a customization module that, based on the vehicle location data, outputs setting data for the vehicle that includes a movement for the window relative to the door…” and Col. 8 line 18 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The prior location setting data 126 can comprise a customization setting for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 for a particular geographical location, which can be stored in and accessed from the data store 130… Based on the location data 108… ambient data 120… prior location setting data 126, prior location data 127 and prior window action location data 128, the setting control module 102 can access a look-up table … and retrieve output setting data 132, which can include radio data 134, passive lock data 136, lock feedback data 138… interior light data 144 and window action data 146 …”), the generation device comprising:
a storage unit (See at least Fig. 3 – Data Store 130); and
an execution unit (See at least Col. 2 lines 18-26- “…module refers to any hardware, software, firmware, electronic control component, processing logic, and/or processor device… a processor …that executes one or more software or firmware programs… that provide the described functionality...”), wherein the execution unit is configured to:
acquire, from the vehicle, a plurality of pieces of combination data each indicating a combination of vehicle environment information indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle and setting information indicating the setting values for the operation devices individually operated in the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information (See at least Col. 8 line 18 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The prior location setting data 126 can comprise a customization setting for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 for a particular geographical location, which can be stored in and accessed from the data store 130… Based on the location data 108… ambient data 120… prior location setting data 126, prior location data 127 and prior window action location data 128, the setting control module 102 can access a look-up table … and retrieve output setting data 132, which can include radio data 134, passive lock data 136, lock feedback data 138… interior light data 144 and window action data 146 …”);
store the acquired pieces of combination data in the storage unit (See at least Col. 8 line 18 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The prior location setting data 126 can comprise a customization setting for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 for a particular geographical location, which can be stored in and accessed from the data store 130…”);
select, in the pieces of combination data stored in the storage unit, the vehicle environment information satisfying a predetermined selection condition among pieces of the vehicle environment information included in a plurality of the combinations (See at least Col. 8 line 46 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The setting data 132 can comprise user input customization settings for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 based on a particular geographic location. The radio data 134 can comprise one or more radio stations for the receiver 82 to tune to based on a particular geographic location of the vehicle 10… if the vehicle 10 is located in a residential area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data … activate the exterior lights 58… As a further example, if the vehicle 10 is located in an urban area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data 138 could comprise data to activate the exterior lights 58 and the audible indicator 62 …” Examiner notes that the predetermined selection condition is broad and the system distinguishing between different types of locations as the vehicle environment information to actuate different equipment based on the types of locations identified reads on the claim limitation);
identify the setting information satisfying a predetermined specific condition among pieces of the setting information in the combinations including the selected vehicle environment information (See at least Col. 8 line 46 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The setting data 132 can comprise user input customization settings for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 based on a particular geographic location. The radio data 134 can comprise one or more radio stations for the receiver 82 to tune to based on a particular geographic location of the vehicle 10… if the vehicle 10 is located in a residential area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data … activate the exterior lights 58… As a further example, if the vehicle 10 is located in an urban area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data 138 could comprise data to activate the exterior lights 58 and the audible indicator 62 …” Examiner notes that the predetermined specific condition is broad and the system distinguishing between equipment settings to actuate depending on the type of locations identified reads on the claim limitation); and
generate a plurality of the setting values included in the identified setting information as the setting value set in the vehicle environment indicated by the selected vehicle environment information (See at least Col. 8 line 18 through Col. 9 lines 1-3 – “… The prior location setting data 126 can comprise a customization setting for one or more of the RKE system 38, exterior lights 58, interior lights 60, audible indicator 62, locks 42, window system 44 and entertainment system 25 for a particular geographical location, which can be stored in and accessed from the data store 130… the setting control module 102 can access a look-up table or calibration table, for example, and retrieve output setting data 132, which can include radio data 134, passive lock data 136, lock feedback data 138… if the vehicle 10 is located in a residential area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data … activate the exterior lights 58 …if the vehicle 10 is located in an urban area, and it is dark, the lock feedback data 138 could comprise data to activate the exterior lights 58 and the audible indicator 62 …”).
For claim 3, Washington discloses wherein the operation devices include at least two of a seat device, a shade device, a dimmer, an indoor lighting device, an air conditioner, and an audio device (See at least Col. 8 lines 46-50 – “… The setting data 132 can comprise user input customization settings for one or more of … interior lights 60, audible indicator 62… based on a particular geographic location...”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington in view of Kojima et al. US 20080195564 A1 (“Kojima”).
For claim 2, Washington discloses wherein:
the selection condition is that the number of the combinations including the same vehicle environment information stored in the storage unit is equal to or larger than a predetermined number (See at least Col. 9 lines 24-41 of Washington– “… data that indicates that one or more of the user customized settings is active for a geographic location… learn data 150 can comprise data for prompting the user to save a setting at a frequented geographic location as setting data 132… “).
Washington fails to specifically disclose the specific condition is that a ratio of the number of combinations including the same setting information to the number of the selected combinations is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio.
However, Kojima, in the same field of endeavor teaches the specific condition is that a ratio of the number of combinations including the same setting information to the number of the selected combinations is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio (See at least [0065]-[0067] of Kojima – “… FIG. 4 shows a graph structure for one example of the probabilistic model used for automatically adjusting the setting parameter of the automotive air conditioner 1… The output node 105 outputs the probability of the set temperature … When … the time segment is daytime … the current location is the park …the probability… of the set temperature T.sub.set being lowered by 3.degree. C. is 0.95. Since the obtained probability is greater than the first threshold value Th1, the control information correcting unit 64 corrects the setting parameter so as to lower the set temperature T.sub.set by 3.degree…”). Thus, Washington discloses a system that gathers and stores vehicle equipment setting information for a plurality of vehicle systems in identified vehicle environments and outputs the corresponding vehicle equipment setting information to the vehicle systems when a vehicle is located in specific environments, while Kojima teaches a system that controls the setting of an automotive air conditioner based on a setting probability of the air conditioner for given location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generation device as disclosed in Washington to include the feature of the specific condition being that a ratio of the number of combinations including the same setting information to the number of the selected combinations is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio as taught by Kojima, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to correct equipment setting parameters at a given location when the probability to do so for the given location is above a threshold as specified in at least [0065]-[0067] of Kojima.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington in view of Matsuo US 20210253045 A1 (“Matsuo”).
For claim 4, Washington discloses wherein the execution unit is further configured to output, after the setting value set is generated, a request to present the generated setting value set (See at least Col. 9 line 48 through Col. 10 lines 1-3 of Washington – “… The UI control module 106 can receive as input the notification data 148…The setting display data 154 can comprise a graphical or textual message for display on the display 66, which can inform the users that a particular setting is active for the given geographical location, based on the notification data 148… the textual message can state “Arrived: Home,” “Passive Locking has been disabled.” The setting display data 154 can be displayed independently to the users on the display 66 or could be superimposed on the at least one user interface 156…”).
Washington fails to specifically disclose wherein the execution unit is further configured to output a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition that power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON.
However, Matsuo, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the execution unit is further configured to output a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition that power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON (See at least [0030] of Matsuo – “… a system that displays information on the display unit 4a provided at the periphery of a driver's seat of the vehicle 1 when, for example, a user performs an operation to turn on an ignition switch of the vehicle 1…”). Thus, Washington discloses a system that gathers and stores vehicle equipment setting information for a plurality of vehicle systems in identified vehicle environments and outputs the corresponding vehicle equipment setting information to the vehicle systems when a vehicle is located in specific environments, while Matsuo teaches a display for a vehicle that provides information when the vehicle ignition is turned on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generation device as disclosed in Washington to include the feature of outputting a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition that power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON as taught by Matsuo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to display the setting information to a driver when the driver performs an operation to turn on an ignition switch of the vehicle as specified in at least [0030] of Matsuo.
For claim 5, Washington discloses wherein the execution unit is further configured to output, after the setting value set is generated, a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition that the vehicle environment of the vehicle becomes the vehicle environment indicated by the vehicle environment information of the generated setting value set (See at least Col. 9 line 48 through Col. 10 lines 1-3 of Washington – “… The UI control module 106 can receive as input the notification data 148…The setting display data 154 can comprise a graphical or textual message for display on the display 66, which can inform the users that a particular setting is active for the given geographical location, based on the notification data 148… the textual message can state “Arrived: Home,” “Passive Locking has been disabled.” The setting display data 154 can be displayed independently to the users on the display 66 or could be superimposed on the at least one user interface 156…”).
Washington fails to specifically disclose wherein the execution unit is further configured to output a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition after power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON.
However, Matsuo, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the execution unit is further configured to output a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition after power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON (See at least [0030] of Matsuo – “… a system that displays information on the display unit 4a provided at the periphery of a driver's seat of the vehicle 1 when, for example, a user performs an operation to turn on an ignition switch of the vehicle 1…”). Thus, Washington discloses a system that gathers and stores vehicle equipment setting information for a plurality of vehicle systems in identified vehicle environments and outputs the corresponding vehicle equipment setting information to the vehicle systems when a vehicle is located in specific environments, while Matsuo teaches a display for a vehicle that provides information when the vehicle ignition is turned on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the generation device as disclosed in Washington to include the feature of outputting a request to present the generated setting value set under a condition after power of the vehicle is turned from OFF to ON as taught by Matsuo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to display the setting information to a driver when the driver performs an operation to turn on an ignition switch of the vehicle as specified in at least [0030] of Matsuo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668