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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al. (US 2024/0095489) in view of Ricci (US 2014/0309879) and further in view of Blake et al. (US 2011/0263293).
Regarding claim 1:
Kopp dscloses:
Claim 1
Kopp
1. (currently amended) A device to interact with a user in a motor vehicle, comprising:
Paragraph 5: "for use in a vehicle"
an interaction unit arranged in an interior of the motor vehicle and configured to provide an interaction with a user; and
Paragraph 30: "communication behavior with the user"
a personalization unit configured to provide a user preference for the interaction with the interaction unit,
Paragraph 30
wherein the interaction unit is configured to modify a degree of interaction of the interaction unit in response to a user input,_and
Paragraph 22: "done manually be the user"
the personalization unit is arranged on the interaction unit or included in the interaction unit and configured such that the personalization unit is removable to be replaceable, to provide a user preference.
Not disclosed by Kopp
Kopp does not disclose:
(A) "the personalization unit is arranged on the interaction unit or included in the interaction unit" and
(B) "configured such that the personalization unit is removable to be replaceable, to provide a user preference"
Regarding (B):
Ricci discloses:
the personalization unit is configured such that the personalization unit is removable to be replaceable, to provide a user preference (as seen in, e.g., Fig. 2, there may be a user device 212 that has the profile data 252; this device might connect via "a direct connection" as per paragraph 371).
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.
Ricci shows personalization data can be stored on a mobile device, allowing the user to, e.g., switch or transfer it. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (A):
Although Ricci discloses the personalization unit may have a direct connection, Ricci does not explicitly say it is "arranged on the interaction unit or included in the interaction unit"
Blake discloses:
A personal device may be arranged on the interaction unit or included in the interaction unit (paragraph 47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kopp in view of Ricci the elements taught by Blake.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp, Ricci, and Blake are directed to the same field of art.
Kopp in view of Ricci already discloses the personalization unit can be a mobile device connected to the interaction unit. Blake shows such a device can be docked in the interaction unit. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Kopp, etc., 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 (Kopp paragraphs 31-34).
Regarding claim 7:
Kopp, etc., discloses:
Wherein the personalization unit is configured to be removable to replaceable by being slidable into engagement with the interaction unit (Blake paragraph 47; Fig. 3)
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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 Ricci and further in view of Blake, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0051485).
Regarding claim 3:
Kopp, etc., discloses a device as discussed above.
Kopp, etc., 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, and Ricci shows displays, but Xu is relied on for this and the dependent claims below).
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, etc., the elements taught by Xu.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp, etc., 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, etc., 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, etc., 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, etc., 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) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp in Kopp in view of Ricci and further in view of Blake, and further in view of Piao et al. (US 2019/0212819)
Regarding claim 8:1
Kopp, etc., discloses a device as discussed above.
Kopp, etc., 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, etc., the elements taught by Piao.
The rationale is as follows:
Kopp, etc., 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, etc., 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Kopp, or Kopp in view of Ricci, does not disclose the new language of the claims. The Examiner does not agree with applicant’s assessment of Ricci’s teaching, but regardless, Blake is now relied upon to teach the additional details. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 claims 8 and 17 were rejected as unpatentable over Kopp, etc., in view of Xu above. This is an alternate rejection of these claims.
Prosecution Insights