DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Objections
The objection to the claim is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments correcting the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to amount to paraphrasing Lee and providing the conclusory statement that “such disclosure does not reasonably correspond to” the limitations. These arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made or otherwise show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The limitations do not clearly overcome the prior art, particularly in light of the extremely broad nature of the limitations (See Claim Interpretations section below) and the issues of clarity identified below (See 35 USC § 112(b) section below).
For example, “the difference” is not claimed in any manner. As another example, how the first area and second area are different is not claimed in any manner. As another example, the “setting details” are not claimed in any manner. As another example, the nature of “showing” is not claimed in any manner.
See the updated rejection below.
Finally, as noted in the Claim Interpretation section of the prior Office Action dated 04/16/2026, the argued limitation appears to be a contingent limitation and thus holds no merit with respect to the method/process claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments appear wholly reliant on those made with respect to 35 USC § 102 address above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 3 – 15 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 9, the claims recite the following limitations:
“inform” or “informing” “the user of a difference between the setting details at the past point in time and the current setting details by simultaneously displaying, on a screen that includes a first area and a second area, the first area showing the current setting details and the second area showing the difference between the setting details and the current setting details”.
Either 1), the what of “displaying” is missing, the following “the first area showing” and “the second area showing” being merely further limitations thereof, or 2), these are what are “displaying”, however they then lack sufficient antecedent basis, no such first and second areas being previously recited.
Furthermore, and relatedly, the limitation of “the setting details at the past point in time” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. What is previously recited is the contingent limitation of “when setting details different from the current setting details have been set at a predetermined past point in time”. The noun phrase is thus that of “setting details different from the current setting details”. The presently recited “setting details at the past point in time” is broader and may include setting details with or without one or more differences from the current setting details, such broad setting details not being previously recited.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations have been interpreted as instead reading:“inform” or “informing” “the user of a difference between the setting details different from the current setting details and the current setting details by simultaneously displaying on a screen a first area showing the current setting details and a second area showing the difference between the setting details different from the current setting details and the current setting details”.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the setting details at the past point in time”. As demonstrated above, this should instead read:
“the setting details different from the current setting details”.
Regarding Claims 11, 13, and 15, the claims recite the limitation “the setting details of the driver assist functions set for the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Previously the claims recite “current setting details of the plurality of driver assist functions, set to the vehicle”, wherein “to” is different than “for”. Additionally, previously recited “setting details different from the current setting details” may also be considered as reading on this limitation, leaving it unclear which is referred to.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation should instead read:
“the current setting details of the plurality of driver assist functions set to the vehicle”.
Regarding the remaining claims (Claims 4 – 7, 12, and 14), the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 4 – 7, 12, and 14 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
The claims are presently constructed extremely broadly, both in the terms used and the general construction (grammar, phrases, etc.) of the claims.
For example:
Applicant uses the phrase “when” and “in response to” frequently. This appears to be the recitation of a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates. However, the use is never used in a closed, exclusive form. Thus, prior art which teaches performing the function under all conditions, or at least under the provided condition without recitation of not doing under any others, appears to read on these limitations.
Applicant uses the phrase “individually” paired with “one or more processors”. Consequently, the term “individually” appears to hold no narrowing scope in the case of one processor, and furthermore is still not particularly narrowing as the nature of “individually” is still not claimed with any particularity. If a processor is truly structurally separate all actions it makes are inherently individual in some manner. If this instead refers to the plurality of driver assist functions”, the term “individually” refers to the grouped noun phrase than any particular item and holds a broad open meaning, especially in light of no groups or individual driver assist function being recited.
Applicant uses the phrase “before the vehicle drives”. However, no qualifiers or other limitations are provided to particularly limit what this phrase is limited to meaning. This is not specific such that it clearly indicates before any driving, before user driving, before all driving, before a particular type of driving, etc. Furthermore, this appears to specify a particular range of time within a greater range of simply operating the vehicle. A device configured to inform a user of current setting details at any point of operation, including before anything that might be considered driving by anyone or anything reads on this limitation.
Applicant uses the phrase “stopping driving”. However, no qualifiers or other limitations are provided to particularly limit what this phrase is limited to meaning. This is not specific such that it clearly indicates any driving, user driving, all driving, a particular type of driving, etc. Furthermore, this appears to specify a particular range of time within a greater range of simply operating the vehicle. Additionally, it is phrased as “stopping” with “driving” which means any activity related to “stopping” may be considered such as being parked, braking, idling, etc.
Applicant uses the limitations of “inform a/the user” of a particular setting related information are generally not claimed with any particularity, for example to a particular form, etc. Consequently, a graphical user interface which clearly illustrates the state of user manipulatable settings reads on most or all of these limitations as any current settings or changes made are immediately shown/displayed.
Applicant uses the limitations of “provide instructions” or “provide an instruction” are not claimed with any particularity. Consequently, a graphical user interface which clearly illustrates the state of user manipulatable settings reads on most or all of these limitations as any current settings or changes made are immediately shown/displayed.
Applicant uses a limitation of “predetermined”. However, there is no associated definition which makes it clear the distinction between a predetermined item and the item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3 – 6, and 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20170144617 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors (See at least [0033] “a vehicle comprises a processing system that comprises at least one data processor”) configured to:
Individually switch a plurality of driver assist functions in a vehicle between an enabled state and a disabled state (See at least [0011] “selectively controlling operations of a plurality of safety driving support devices for the vehicle”, see one list of devices and functions in [0016], and [0057] “drivers activate or deactivate the individual functions such as intervention and warning options”); and
inform a user of current setting details of the plurality of driver assist functions, set to the vehicle (See at least Figure 5 and [0076] “a driver (user) can review and select the user interface provided by the display unit 34 by operating the input unit 32 as described above”. Alternatively, see [0069] “To show signs corresponding to the selected operating ranges of the safety driving support devices at one specific point, the display unit 34 on the input unit 32 may represent a degree of system intervention through intuitive colors using LEDs with colors”), before the vehicle drives (See at least [0056] “a particular driver may activate all of the safety-related devices before driving and then the driver may not control, or manipulate, the devices while driving”. Alternatively, see following sentence of already recited [0069] which reads “For instance, when the vehicle is started, i.e., in an initial state, in which safe driving is supported, of the safety driving support device, a green color may be displayed to show safety. When the safety driving support device provides a warning only, a white color may be displayed. When an alarm is deactivated, a yellow color may be displayed. When driving assistance functions of all the safety driving support devices are deactivated, a red color may be displayed to inform the driver that careful driving is required since the all safety function are deactivated”),
when (Contingent limitation, see Claim Interpretation section above. Furthermore, the claim does not set forth anything for any other condition) setting details different from the current setting details have been set at a predetermined past point in time (The term “predetermined past point in time” is not claimed in any manner. Any past point in time thus reads on the limitation), inform the user of a difference between the setting details at the past point in time and the current setting details by simultaneously displaying, on a screen that includes a first area and a second area (Any areas of the display may be the first and second areas), the first area showing the current setting details and the second area showing the difference between the setting details and the current setting details, the first area being different (The nature of “different” is not claimed in any manner) from the second area (See at least Figure 5 and [0076] “a driver (user) can review and select the user interface provided by the display unit 34 by operating the input unit 32 as described above”. When making selections, any changes are immediately shown which informs the user that a change (difference) has occurred from the past setting and current, immediately chosen setting. The past selected setting and current selected settings are shown in different locations/areas of the screen, and a difference of which active vs inactive via the radio button to the right of each labelled setting).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide instructions to change to the setting details at the past point in time, when predetermined operation to the vehicle is received (The nature of the instructions or predetermined operation are not claimed with any particularity whatsoever. A user may freely access and change settings including to those previously selected which causes the processor to change the settings. See prior recitations).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to inform the user before the vehicle drives that a specific driver assist function is disabled, when the specific driver assist function among the plurality of driver assist functions is switched to the disabled state (See at least Figure 5 and [0076] “a driver (user) can review and select the user interface provided by the display unit 34 by operating the input unit 32 as described above”. When making selections, any changes are immediately shown which informs the user that a change (difference) has occurred from the past setting and current, immediately chosen setting and may be for a “specific” setting/function. Alternatively see [0069] which reads “For instance, when the vehicle is started, i.e., in an initial state, in which safe driving is supported, of the safety driving support device, a green color may be displayed to show safety. When the safety driving support device provides a warning only, a white color may be displayed. When an alarm is deactivated, a yellow color may be displayed. When driving assistance functions of all the safety driving support devices are deactivated, a red color may be displayed to inform the driver that careful driving is required since the all safety function are deactivated”. Accordingly, any disabled/deactivated, etc. setting/function results in a non-green color being displayed).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the specific driver assist function is a driver assist function that assists in collision avoidance between the vehicle and an object (See at least [0064] “the safety driving support devices 40 for the vehicle may be classified according to the purpose of use, such as information provision and warning, accident avoidance, collision damage reduction, post-collision damage reduction, additional damage prevention and the like”. See remainder of [0064] for specific examples).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide an instruction to switch the specific driver assist function to the enabled state, when specific operation to the vehicle is received (See again previous recitations. A user makes a selection, a “specific operation”, which causes an “instruction” to “switch”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 1 with respect to the application of prior art. The claim is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above. Claim 8 merely recites an additional generic computer component of a non-transitory storage medium. See at least [0033] of Lee as necessary which discloses “at least one computer-readable memory storing a computer program”. Examiner furthermore notes that Claim 8 is directed towards a method or process and thus contingent limitations are treated different than a system claim. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, on the screen, a selection configured to change the current setting details to past setting details via a button in the second area (Examiner notes that while the intent may have been of a touchscreen, the phrasing appears broader than this. Receiving on a screen may be accomplished through displaying. See again Figure 5, in particular the radio buttons next to each setting).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a memory that includes a configuration area and a comparison area (The nature of these “areas” are not claimed as separate or distinct, and appear to be mere arbitrary labels regarding their function and intended use, see the following limitations), the configuration area configured to store setting information indicating (An especially broad phrase, does not require that the setting information even actual comprise the following but merely point out, show, or demonstrate) the setting details of the driver assist functions set for the vehicle, and the comparison area configured to store setting information indicating the setting details of the driver assist functions when driving in the past to be (Intended use, not a positive recitation. This is especially evident when examining Claim 15 wherein this is still not an actively claimed step) compared with the current setting details in the setting information stored in the configuration area (See at least [0062] “The apparatus 30 for configuring the operation of the safety driving device for the vehicle may further include a configuration storage unit 42 for storing a driver's respective configuration values with respect to devices mounted on the vehicle. In addition, the apparatus 30 may control the operations of the plurality of the safety driving support devices 40 through interconnection with the configuration storage unit 42. Operating ranges of the plurality of the safety driving support devices 40 may be determined according to input levels transferred through the input unit 32 and the respective values stored in the configuration storage unit 42”. There is no requirement that a setting cannot be for both past and present/current operation. If Applicant’s intent is to claim separate past and present settings, the claim requires further limitation); and
the one or more processors are configured to update contents of each of the configuration area and the comparison area in the memory in response (Contingent limitation. See again preceding) to the vehicle stopping driving (The above recitation of Lee is not limited to a particular timing. This limitation is not exclusive. Furthermore, the phrasing of “stopping driving” is especially broad).
Regarding Claims 12 – 15, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 10 – 11 with respect to the application of prior art. The claim is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 10 – 11 above. Claims 12 – 13 merely recite an additional generic computer component of a non-transitory storage medium. See at least [0033] of Lee as necessary which discloses “at least one computer-readable memory storing a computer program”. Examiner furthermore notes that Claims 12 – 13 are directed towards a method or process and thus contingent limitations are treated different than a system claim. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Lee (2018) (US 20180162320 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches:
The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1,
Lee does not teach, but Lee (2018) teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide instructions related to setting details corresponding to the user getting in the vehicle from among setting details of the driver assist functions of a plurality of users registered in advance, with the plurality of driver assist functions (See at least [0056] “The present invention provides a method for identifying a driver through various sensors and automatically operating the aforementioned systems without an additional operation while a driver enters a vehicle. More specifically, the present invention provides a user identification method using recognition of a lever-type door grip pattern that detects a driver using information of various sensors without an additional driver operation and then operates electronic systems (e.g., IMS, AVN system, driving mode setting system, etc.) having differently set values for drivers in response to the recognized user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a user registry and associated set of settings which are accessed for a given user entering a vehicle as disclosed in Lee (2018), and for said settings to include those of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of user profiles for user settings is well known in the computer arts in general, as well as in the vehicle arts. The use of such profiles removes the need to manually change each setting to a user’s preference each time they use a vehicle after another person having different preferences than which they have or usually set.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240278714 A1, US 20230356571 A1, US 20230001766 A1, US 20220032906 A1, US 10762786 B1, US 20200148223 A1, US 20190369868 A1, US 20170032678 A1, US 20150134226 A1, and US 20140323113 A1 make clear that the timing of “before driving” regarding settings, warnings, etc. is a common and well-understood timing consideration for vehicles. In other words, a condition of “before driving” or similar appears to be common-knowledge and to lack novelty to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
US 20100289633 A1, US 20090088928 A1, US 20070002032 A1 disclose similar timing features, but more particularly with respect to locking out settings/features/etc. from a being changed or selected or similar by a user while the vehicle is being driven or operated (effectively limiting changes to “before driving”, but in an exclusionary form).
US 20060038447 A1 is another reference discloses user profiles, or “saved personal settings of a particular driver”. US 20160101749 A1 us another similar reference regarding this feature.
While not directed towards vehicles, Nakayama et al. (US 20170060504 A1) is directed towards the concept of providing a warning to a user if “present … settings are different from past … settings” ([0070]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights