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 .
Status of Claims
The Examiner acknowledges that the current application is a continuation (CON) of the parent application 17829525, which has an effective filing date of 06/01/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a “computer-readable storage medium” that is not limited to tangible embodiment. Par. [0033] of the specification discloses, “Multiple embodiments depicted herein are not intended to limit the scope of the solution. The computer-readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable medium or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” This implies that the specification does not explicitly limit the “computer-readable storage medium” to only be the “non-transitory computer readable medium” or the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to read “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 12, 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur, In (Publication No. US 20210331701 A1; hereinafter Hur) in view of Elangovan et al. (Publication No. US 20200282951 A1; hereinafter Elangovan).
Regarding to claim 1, Hur teaches A method, comprising:
setting a vehicle to operate in a service mode or a normal mode based on one or more of: an operation of the vehicle, a characteristic of the vehicle, a time, or a location of the vehicle; ([Par. 0899 – 0900], “The autonomous parking mode may be switched to the normal driving mode, the parking mode, and the vehicle service mode when a predetermined condition is met. [0900] The vehicle service mode is a state in which the vehicle 100 is located in the service zone 20 in order to receive the vehicle service previously registered by the user. In the vehicle service mode, the vehicle 100 may autonomously drive along the movement path set by the management server 40 and receive the vehicle services previously registered by the user. The vehicle service mode may be switched to the autonomous parking mode or the parking mode when the predetermined condition is met.”)
sending, by the vehicle operating in the service mode, at least one alert for the characteristic of the vehicle to a mobile device associated with a user of the vehicle when the user is not occupying the vehicle; ([Par. 0732], “the user terminal may include one or more of a mobile terminal, a personal computer (PC), a notebook computer, and a user interface device of a vehicle. The user interface device of the vehicle may be an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system.”; [Par. 0935 – 0936], “Referring to FIG. 69, the vehicle 100 may autonomous drive under the control of the management server 40 within the service zone 20 to receive a vehicle service previously registered by the user. The user may check a real-time service status of the vehicle 100 on the UX screen displayed on the user terminal 50. [0936] The management server 40 may transmit information such as a movement path linking service providers performing the vehicle services previously registered by the user, a current position of the vehicle, a current service progress ratio of the vehicle (e.g., 80%), a service result of each item (e.g., an air pressure check, a tire check, etc.) to the user terminal 50. Accordingly, the user may check the service status of the vehicle 100 at a remote location in real time.” Where the detail that “the user is at a remote location” implies that the user is not occupying the vehicle.”
modifying, by the vehicle operating in the normal mode, functionality of the vehicle; ([Par. 0908], “The vehicle 100 may be operated in the normal driving mode to the destination by autonomous driving without the driver or driver interference. The normal driving mode is divided into a manual mode, an autonomous driving mode, and a remote control mode depending on a subject who controls the vehicle 100. In the manual mode, the vehicle is operated by the driver. In the autonomous driving mode, the controller 170 or the operation system 700 directly controls the vehicle 100 without driver interference and operates the vehicle 100 to a destination set by the driver. The autonomous driving mode may include an autonomous parking mode in which an empty space in a parking lot is searched and the vehicle is parked therein.”) and
accessing, by the vehicle operating in the normal mode, the personal information of the user of the vehicle. ([Par. 0915], “65A to 65C are views showing an example of UX screens in the normal driving mode, the autonomous driving parking mode, the vehicle service mode, and the parking mode. UX screen is the screen of the user terminal. The user terminal may include at least one of the user terminal 50, the IVI system of the vehicle 100, a PC, and a notebook computer, as described above. [0916] The UX screen displayed on the user terminal may include a vehicle service registration/change, a real time status of the vehicle service, the CCTV image viewing, parking information, and the like.” This implies that during the normal driving mode, the user has fully access to the all information of the vehicle thru the UX screen of the vehicle.”)
Hur teaches switching the vehicle into service mode when the vehicle is at service area as described above, but does not explicitly disclose disallowing, by the vehicle operating in the service mode, access to personal information of the user stored by the vehicle;
However, Elangovan teaches disallowing, by the vehicle operating in the service mode, access to personal information of the user stored by the vehicle; ([Par. 0038], “the valet controller 118 is configured to quickly and securely activate and/or deactivate the valet mode of the vehicle 100. Further, the valet controller 118 is configured to quickly and securely authenticate and/or de-authenticate the NFC device 116 for use when the vehicle 100 is in the valet mode. When the vehicle 100 is in the valet mode, the valet controller 118 is configured to limit one or more vehicle functions of the vehicle 100. For example, the valet controller 118 is configured to set a center console display (e.g., a touchscreen 206 of FIG. 2) and/or other display in a locked mode to prevent the valet114 from changing vehicle settings and/or accessing personal information of the user 108. Additionally or alternatively, the valet controller 118 is configured to limit a travelling speed and/or travelling distance while the vehicle 100 is in the valet mode to prevent the valet 114 from operating the vehicle100 in an undesired manner.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Hur to incorporate the teaching of Elangovan. The modification would have been obvious, as restricting access to the user’s personal information when the vehicle is at a service area (such as valet parking) enhances security and protects personal information from external interference.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur further teaches comprising identifying when the vehicle is operating safely during a utilization period. ([Par. 0747], “The vehicle state information may be information related to states of various devices provided in the vehicle 100. For example, the vehicle state information includes information on a charged state of a battery, information on an operational state of the user interface device 200, the object detection device 300, the communication device 400, a maneuvering device 500, a vehicle drive device 600, an operation system 700, and information on whether each device is abnormal.”)
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur further teaches comprising identifying when the vehicle is not operating safely during a utilization period. ([Par. 0747], “The vehicle state information may be information related to states of various devices provided in the vehicle 100. For example, the vehicle state information includes information on a charged state of a battery, information on an operational state of the user interface device 200, the object detection device 300, the communication device 400, a maneuvering device 500, a vehicle drive device 600, an operation system 700, and information on whether each device is abnormal.”; [Par. 0748], “The vehicle state information may indicate whether a GPS signal of the vehicle 100 is normally received, whether at least one of the sensors provided in the vehicle 100 is abnormal, and whether each of the devices provided in the vehicle 100 normally operates.”)
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur further teaches further comprising setting the service mode based on the location of the vehicle being proximate to another location. ([Par. 0899 – 0900], “The autonomous parking mode may be switched to the normal driving mode, the parking mode, and the vehicle service mode when a predetermined condition is met. [0900] The vehicle service mode is a state in which the vehicle 100 is located in the service zone 20 in order to receive the vehicle service previously registered by the user. In the vehicle service mode, the vehicle 100 may autonomously drive along the movement path set by the management server 40 and receive the vehicle services previously registered by the user. The vehicle service mode may be switched to the autonomous parking mode or the parking mode when the predetermined condition is met.”)
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur further teaches comprising receiving telemetry data from the vehicle, wherein the telemetry data includes status information for the vehicle. ([Par. 0747], “The vehicle state information may be information related to states of various devices provided in the vehicle 100. For example, the vehicle state information includes information on a charged state of a battery, information on an operational state of the user interface device 200, the object detection device 300, the communication device 400, a maneuvering device 500, a vehicle drive device 600, an operation system 700, and information on whether each device is abnormal.”; [Par. 0748], “The vehicle state information may indicate whether a GPS signal of the vehicle 100 is normally received, whether at least one of the sensors provided in the vehicle 100 is abnormal, and whether each of the devices provided in the vehicle 100 normally operates.”)
Claim 8 recites a system with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Hur futher teaches A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are communicatively coupled, and wherein the at least one processor. ([Par. 0999], “The present disclosure described above may be implemented as a computer-readable code in a medium in which a program is recorded. The computer-readable medium includes any type of recording device in which data that can be read by a computer system is stored. The computer-readable medium may be, for example, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state disk (SSD), a silicon disk drive (SDD), a ROM, a RAM, a CD-ROM, a magnetic tape, a floppy disk, an optical data storage device, and the like. The computer-readable medium also includes implementations in the form of carrier waves (e.g., transmission via the Internet). Also, the computer may include the controller 180 of the terminal. Thus, the foregoing detailed description should not be interpreted limitedly in every aspect and should be considered to be illustrative.”)
Claims 9 – 12 recite the method with substantially similar scope as claim claims 2 – 5 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 2 – 5 respectively above.
Claims 15 – 19 recite a computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claims 1 – 5 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 1 – 5 respectively above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hur and Elangovan in further view of Kyes et al. (Publication No. US 20210287458 A1; hereinafter Kyes).
Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur teaches collecting vehicle state information as described in par. [0747], but the combination of Hur and Elangovan does not explicitly teach further comprising analyzing status information to perform one or more of: a proactive failure analysis, a risk assessment, an engine life health report, or a degradation status report, for the vehicle.
However, Kyes teaches further comprising analyzing status information to perform one or more of: a proactive failure analysis, a risk assessment, an engine life health report, or a degradation status report, for the vehicle. ([Par. 0230], “ In the case of a system, the system includes a telematics hardware device 30 and a remote device 44. The telematics hardware device 30 monitors and logs operational component data. This data includes operational values from various vehicle components. The operational component data also includes vehicle component data based upon measured component events such as a cranking event. The operational component data is communicated from the telematics hardware device 30 to remote device 44. Over time, the logs of operational data provide an operational life cycle view of vehicles components from new, good, fair, poor and failure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Hur and Elangovan to incorporate the teaching of Kyes. The modification would have been obvious because determining the degradation status of the components of the vehicle enables timely replacement of degraded components, thereby ensuring the safe operation of the vehicle.
Claim 13 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 6, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 6 above.
Claim 20 recites the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claim 6, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hur and Elangovan in further view of Masuda et al. (Publication No. US 20190266295 A1; hereinafter Masuda).
Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Hur and Elangovan teaches the method of claim 1.
Hur teaches collecting vehicle state information as described in par. [0747], but the combination of Hur and Elangovan does not explicitly teach further comprising analyzing status information to factory specifications for the vehicle to proactively predict a percentage of degradation of one or more components of the vehicle based upon factory specifications.
However, Masuda teaches further comprising analyzing status information to factory specifications for the vehicle to proactively predict a percentage of degradation of one or more components of the vehicle based upon factory specifications. ([Par. 0156], “The factory vehicle model data 184 is selected from the vehicle model data set 174. For example, the scheduler system 199 selects the factory vehicle model data 184 from the vehicle model data set 174 based on the make and model of a vehicle 123 as indicated by the VIN number for the vehicle 123. The scheduler system 199 may include a list of VIN numbers and the makes and models of the vehicles that are associated with each of these VIN numbers.”; [Par. 0157], “The first onboard data 156A and the first measured data 172A are instances of onboard data 156 and measured data 172 that are received at a first time and describe the appreciation or depreciation events for the vehicle 123 up to this first time. The first time is subsequent to the manufacture time of the vehicle 123 so that the first onboard data 156A and the first measured data 172A describe the vehicle 123 in a condition that is different from its new condition as it existed at the time of its manufacture. Similarly, the Nth onboard data 156N and the Nth measured data 172Nare instances of onboard data 156 and measured data 172 that are received at an Nth time, where “N” is a variable indicating any positive whole number that occurs after the first time and describe additional appreciation or depreciation events for the vehicle 123 up to this Nth time. The ellipses and the downward arrow that says “Time” depicted in FIG. 1B indicate a passage of time from the first time to the Nth time.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Hur and Elangovan to incorporate the teaching of Masuda. The modification would have been obvious because predicting degradation of the component based on factory specifications enables more accurate prediction of the component's life cycle based on its manufacturing condition.
Claim 14 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 7, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights