CTNF 19/073,168 CTNF 97070 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the limitation “the users registered in advance” which lacks proper antecedent basis. It should instead read “users registered in advance” . Appropriate correction is required. Specification 06-31 AIA 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. 07-30-03-h AIA 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” 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 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 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 – 6 and 8 – 9 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” ) . Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches: The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when setting details different from the current setting details have been set at a predetermined past point in time, inform the user of a difference between the setting details at the past point in time and the current setting details ( 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. 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”. The user can readily have changed between these settings and therefore at least under some conditions the vehicle will be informing the user of a changed setting selection from some arbitrary past point in time ) . Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches: The driver assist apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are 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 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 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” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 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 the 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 as 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 which they have set . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 9 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 10 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 11 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,168 Page 12 Art Unit: 3657
Prosecution Insights