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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 44A-44C and 133A-133E. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 2 reads "settings with group" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "settings with a group" to improve . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2, claim 6 line 2, and claim 7 line 3 read “settings with group” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “settings with a group” to improve clarity.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 read “processors are configured” which appears to be a continuity error since the processors have already been configured in claim 1 which claim 3 depends upon and therefore should read “processors are further configured” to improve consistency.
Claim 4 line 2 reads “an occupant”, but there is already antecedent basis for the occupant in claim 3 which claim 4 depends upon, and therefore this should read “the occupant” to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 5 line 2 reads “a suggestion”, but there is already antecedent basis for the suggestion in claim 3 which claim 5 depends upon, and therefore this should read “the suggestion” to improve clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Selected” is being interpreted as a “manually selected” as only a manual selection appears to be reasonable in light of the specification (see at least ¶ 0025) and in light of dependent claims 3-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite the limitation "the groups" in lines 6, 6, and 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite the limitation "the driver assist function" in lines 3-4, 3-4, and 4-5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the driver assist functions that are targets to be disabled" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the driver assist functions that are excluded from the targets" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waeller et al. DE 102010047778 A1 (hereinafter Waeller) in view of Katayama et al. US 20230294723 A1 (hereinafter Katayama).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7;
Waeller teaches
A driver assist method comprising:
collectively providing instructions of settings with a group (¶ 0001 discloses a plurality of driver assistance systems assigned to sets that can be jointly activated or deactivated upon selection of the set), the settings being set to driver assist functions included in the group (¶ 0001 discloses activating or deactivating driver assistance systems), and the group being configured so that the driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group (¶ 0014 discloses that sets can be reconfigured by a user); and
when a specific group representing a driving mode in which notification is disabled is selected from among the groups, collectively disable notification-related functions in the driver assist functions included in the specific group (¶ 0001 discloses jointly deactivating driver assistance systems associated with a selected set; ¶ 0010 discloses that the type of operation is irrelevant since all driver assistance systems, including warning systems for example, can be activated or deactivated together).
Waeller does not explicitly recite
A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors and that cause the one or more processors to perform the method.
While this may be implicitly derived from Waeller wherein a storage device and control unit, a known component of a processor, are utilized to perform the method (see at least ¶ 0009) suggesting some program instructions must be utilized within the storage device to execute the method with a control unit, Katayama will be utilized to teach these limitations. Katayama teaches
A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors and that cause the one or more processors to perform the method (¶ 0018 discloses an ECU comprising a storage device storing a program to be executed on a processor of the ECU to perform a method of controlling driver assistance systems).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Waeller to incorporate the teachings of Katayama such that the method of Waeller can be performed utilizing the ECU of Katayama. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for reliable and repeatable performance of the method utilizing a computer.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waeller as modified by Katayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. US 20080088425 A1 (hereinafter Hara).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Waeller reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Waeller does not teach that
the one or more processors are configured to make a suggestion to select the specific group, when a predetermined condition related to an occupant or a predetermined condition related to a driving purpose is satisfied.
Hara teaches that
the one or more processors are configured to make a suggestion to select the specific group when a predetermined condition related to an occupant is satisfied (¶ 0012 discloses prompting a user to disable a vehicle’s notification when a user operation has been detected; examiner understands a “condition related to an occupant” to be reasonable broad such as to include a user operation, and examiner further urges review of claim 4’s rejection under 103 if a narrower interpretation is desired).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Waeller to incorporate the teachings of Hara such that a user can be prompted to disable a notification according to Hara by selecting a set comprising the warning driver assistance system where the notification originates in Waeller. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce nuisance to users as disclosed in Hara (¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Waeller reference teaches all of claim 3 as detailed above.
Waeller further teaches that
when the one or more processors make a suggestion to select the specific group, the instructions of the settings include a change of a setting of another function other than the notification-related functions (¶ 0010 discloses regulating systems, i.e. non-notification related systems, can also be included within a set and can be deactivated along with the other systems in the set based on set selection; examiner understands this means that any time a group is selected such as from the suggestion detailed in claim 3 above, non-notification related functions may also be deactivated).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waeller as modified by Katayama and Hara as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Priya et al. US 20240217522 A1 (hereinafter Priya).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Waeller reference teaches all of claim 3 as detailed above.
Waeller does not teach that
the predetermined condition related to an occupant is at least one of a case where a driver registered in advance getting in the vehicle is detected and a case where a passenger getting in a rear seat is detected.
Priya teaches that
the predetermined condition related to an occupant is at least one of a case where a driver registered in advance getting in the vehicle is detected (¶ 0011 discloses driver preferences can be saved, including warning preferences; ¶ 0013 discloses vehicle settings can be automatically adjusted to the saved settings when a recognized user is detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Waeller to incorporate the teachings of Priya such that, upon the vehicle recognizing a user according to Priya, the vehicle can prompt the user to disable notification according to Hara of a system that has been saved as a system that the user prefers to have disabled according to Priya. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the vehicle to be quickly configured to an operator’s preferences and reduce time required to set-up the vehicle prior to driving.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejections of record and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The modified Waeller reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Waeller does not teach that
when the one or more processors collectively disable the notification-related functions, the specific group includes the driver assist functions that are targets to be disabled and the driver assist functions that are excluded from the targets to be disabled such that the notification is maintained to be enabled; and
the driver assist functions that are excluded from the targets to be disabled include a function concerned with collision avoidance assist, a function concerned with handling of rear collision while the vehicle stops, and a function concerned with determination as to a condition of a driver.
Instead, Waeller teaches that all driver assistance systems associated with a selected group are deactivated (¶ 0009). Waeller trusts the user to formulate their own desired sets of driver assistance systems that can be deactivated and activated jointly on a whim (¶ 0012-0014) and trusts that if the user wants a system deactivated, that system should be deactivated. The claimed invention instead provides a specific list of functions included within the selected group that cannot be deactivated by a user despite being included in the set which appears to be counterintuitive in light of Waeller. None of the prior art of record makes up for the deficiencies of Waeller, and therefore, the claimed limitation is non-obvious and novel.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Satre US 20230406341 A1 discloses modes that can be activated which turn on or off various driver assistance functions when the mode is activated.
Singh et al. US 20250222945 A1 discloses turning on safety parameters when a new person enters a car, overriding a user’s active profile.
Sommer US 20250249921 A1 discloses deactivating driver assistance functions when the vehicle is in a predefined surrounding area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights