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 § 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)(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) 1-2, 6, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kopp et al. (US 2024/0095489).1
Regarding claim 1:
Kopp discloses:
A device to interact with a user in a motor vehicle (paragraph 5: "for use in a vehicle"), comprising:
an interaction unit arranged in an interior of the motor vehicle and configured to provide an interaction with a user (paragraph 30: "communication behavior with the user");
wherein the interaction unit is configured to modify a degree of interaction of the interaction unit in response to a user input (paragraph 22: "done manually by the user").
Regarding claim 2:
Kopp discloses:
wherein the degree of interaction includes one or more of a degree of connectivity, a degree of activity, and/or a degree of monitoring (paragraphs 31-34).
Regarding claim 6:
Kopp discloses:
wherein the interaction unit includes a personalization unit which is configured to provide a user preference for the interaction unit (paragraph 30).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 15:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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(s) 3-5, 8, 12-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0051485).
Regarding claim 3:
Kopp discloses a device as discussed above.
Kopp does not disclose:
"wherein the interaction unit includes a display apparatus which is configured to provide an interaction with the user."
(Note that Kopp does mention displays in, e.g., paragraph 2, but never shows it).
Xu discloses:
wherein the interaction unit includes a display apparatus which is configured to provide an interaction with the user (paragraph 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kopp the elements taught by Xu.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp and Xu are directed to the same field of art.
Kopp already discloses it is applicable to a display (paragraph 2). Xu shows what a display in a vehicle would be like. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4:
Kopp in view of Xu discloses:
wherein the interaction unit is configured to perform a determination of where the user with whom the interaction unit is interacting is situated in the interior (e.g., Xu paragraphs 104-106) and, in response to the determination, to direct the interaction to the user (Xu paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 5:
Kopp in view of Xu discloses:
wherein the interaction unit includes a movement unit, and wherein the movement unit is configured to direct the interaction to the user (Xu paragraphs 119-120).
Regarding claim 8:
Kopp in view of Xu discloses:
wherein the interaction unit is configured to receive a touch input of the user for the interaction (Xu paragraph 109).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 17:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp in view of Ricci (US 2014/0309879)
Regarding claim 7:
Kopp discloses a device as discussed above.
Kopp does not disclose:
"wherein the personalization unit is replaceable."
Ricci discloses:
wherein the personalization unit is replaceable (as per paragraph 241, the personalization data ("profile") could be stored on a mobile device, among other possibilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kopp the elements taught by Ricci.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp and Ricci are directed to the same field of art.
Kopp does not disclose how the preference data is gathered. Ricci shows it could be gathered from a mobile device, which would allow it to be replaced any time a different mobile device was connected. This is a known improvement one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp in view of Piao et al. (US 2019/0212819)
Regarding claim 8:2
Kopp discloses a device as discussed above.
Kopp does not disclose:
“wherein the interaction unit is configured to receive a touch input of the user for the interaction”
Piao discloses:
wherein the interaction unit is configured to receive a touch input of the user for the interaction (paragraph 308).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kopp the elements taught by Piao.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp and Piao are directed to the same field of art.
Kopp does not specify in any detail how the device is controlled. Piao provides a method that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9:
Kopp in view of Piao discloses:
wherein the interaction unit is configured to provide the touch input of the user to a display unit arranged spaced apart from the interaction unit in the interior of the motor vehicle (as per Piao Fig. 9, the touch devices are 800a and 800b, but the display units are 251 h, e, d, or f.)
Regarding claims 17-18:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goldman-Shenhar et al. (US 2017/0088143).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 Note that Kopp is used here for convenience because it is in English, but this is the US version of DE112019007941, disclosed in IDS. That document’s publication date would be a 102(a)(1) rejection, and it could be used if this becomes important.
2 Note claims 8 and 17 were rejected as unpatentable over Kopp in view of Xu above. This is an alternate rejection of these claims.