CTNF 19/083,151 CTNF 95474 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority 02-27 Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2024-060922 filed on 04/04/2024. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Claim recites the limitation “storage unit” without a structure to perform the function. The specification refers to the “storage device” as the storage unit, however, a device is just interpreted as a means placeholder which invokes the means plus function interpretation. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term " greater " in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " greater " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “storage unit” without structure in the specification which renders the claim indefinite, while specification refers to the “storage device” as the storage unit, however, a device is just interpreted as a means placeholder which invokes the means plus function interpretation. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the vehicle that has sent the selected setting information” and the limitation “the vehicle that has not sent the selected setting information”, there is no antecedent basis for these limitations, which renders the claim indefinite . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites the limitation “execution unit” with the structure in specifications in paragraph [00045] “CPU”. It is being interpreted as means plus function. Claim 2 recites the limitation “storage unit” without a structure in the specification. It is being interpreted as means plus function. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes claims 1 are directed towards a device. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea . With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The process in claims 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of selecting information that satisfies a criterea this is similar to a human choosing setting values that were adjusted which is a mental process. Generating a mode is similar to a human determining that the changed settings need to be included in a new mode or updating the mode with the new value. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the vehicle. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claims 1 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include receiving. The acquiring and storing plurality of setting information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storage unit is generic linking for storing information. the vehicle and the execution unit are recited with high level of generality and considered apply it level of the mental process. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claims 1 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations include receiving. The acquiring and storing plurality of setting information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storage unit is generic linking for storing information. the vehicle and the execution unit are recited with high level of generality and considered apply it level of the mental process.. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result ‐‐ a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) CONCLUSION Thus, since claims 1: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claim 2: the acquiring is the data gathering of claim 1, and the generation is the mental process. Claim 3: sending information is post solution data gathering. Claim 4: determining is a mental process that can be done by a person by comparing an amount to a threshold. Sending information and request is post solution data gathering. Claim 5: the devices are considered apply it level of the human idea. 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. Claims 1, 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Burk (US20220016999) in view of Ricci (US20170247000). Regarding claim 1, Burk teaches a mode setting value set generation device configured to generate a mode setting value set that is used to perform mode control, the mode control being control for collectively controlling a plurality of operation devices mounted on a vehicle in order to set an interior environment of the vehicle to an environment for a specific mode, and the mode setting value set being a setting value set in which a setting value for each of the operation devices is determined, the mode setting value set generation device comprising ([0036]-[0040] disclosing a first mode for a first user that includes a privacy shade and low music when another user is present, or a second mode where the privacy shade is not needed and the music is played louder when no other occupants are present, thus different environments are set for the driver in each mode); a storage unit ([0011] disclosing a memory as a storage unit) ; and an execution unit ([0059] disclosing the computing system including the computing devices to execute the function); wherein the execution unit is configured to acquire a plurality of pieces of setting information from the vehicle, the setting information including information indicating a used set, the used set being the mode setting value set used in the mode control, ([0033]-[0045] disclosing the acquiring of the setting values to be used in the specific mode); store the acquired pieces of setting information in the storage unit ([0033]-[0047] disclosing the storing of the setting information for the specific mode) , Burk does not teach and change information, and the change information indicating a content of change in the setting value subjected to a setting change out of the used set when the mode control is performed, select the setting information that satisfies a predetermined selection condition from the pieces of setting information stored in the storage unit, and generate the mode setting value set that includes, as the setting value after the setting change, the setting value subjected to the setting change out of the setting values included in the used set in the selected setting information. Ricci teaches and change information, and the change information indicating a content of change in the setting value subjected to a setting change out of the used set when the mode control is performed ([0424]-[0426] disclosing determining changed information being different than a setting value) , select the setting information that satisfies a predetermined selection condition from the pieces of setting information stored in the storage unit ([0244]-[0246] disclosing the changed information is selected as being the information that has been changed from the setting values by the driver thus condition herein is including changed information in the setting information); and generate the mode setting value set that includes, as the setting value after the setting change, the setting value subjected to the setting change out of the setting values included in the used set in the selected setting information ([0244]-[0246] disclosing generating the mod setting to include the changed setting that is saved) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Ricci of updating change information to the teaching of the setting mode information of Burk as changed value for the temperature from amongst other unchanged values yielding predictable results in order to improve the satisfaction and comfortability of a user when a user preference have changed under different conditions or simply in a changed vehicle. Regarding claim 3, Burk as modified by Ricci teaches the mode setting value set generation device according to claim 1, wherein the execution unit is further configured to send information indicating the generated mode setting value set to the vehicle that has sent the selected setting information, and not sed the information indicating the generated mode setting value set to the vehicle that has not sent the selected setting information (Burk [0033]-[0047] disclosing the settings are saved as sent data between vehicle devices in the same vehicle that has changed the setting information and no other vehicle). Regarding claim 5, Burk as modified by Ricci teaches the mode setting value set generation device according to claim 1, wherein the operation devices include at least two of the following devices: a seat device, a shade device, a light control device, an interior lighting device, an air conditioner, and an audio device (Burk [0030]-[0055] disclosing including at least a shade device, a lighting device, audio and air conditioner) . Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Burk (US20220016999) in view of Ricci (US20170247000) and Smith (US20170129426). Regarding claim 2, Burk as modified by Ricci teaches the mode setting value set generation device according to claim 1, wherein the execution unit is configured to: Burk as modified by Ricci does not teach When acquiring the setting information, acquire a vehicle environment information together with the setting information, the vehicle environment indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle when the mode control is performed, And when generating the mode value set, generate, as the mod setting value set for the vehicle environment, the mode setting value set including the setting value after the change. Smith teaches When acquiring the setting information, acquire a vehicle environment information together with the setting information, the vehicle environment indicating a vehicle environment of the vehicle when the mode control is performed ([0064] disclosing the inference of a desired changed temperature control based on clothing of a driver, [0091]-[0094] disclosing the further correlation between the preference of the user and the weather such that the temperature is changed to be reduced even in cold weather when a person is wearing heavy clothing or exercising which is learned from a driver preference, see [0064]) , And when generating the mode value set, generate, as the mod setting value set for the vehicle environment, the mode setting value set including the setting value after the change ([0064] disclosing the inference of a desired changed temperature control based on clothing of a driver, [0091]-[0094] disclosing the further correlation between the preference of the user and the weather such that the temperature is changed to be reduced even in cold weather when a person is wearing heavy clothing or exercising which is learned from a driver preference, see [0064]) , Smith teaches the correlation between an environment and changed setting values, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Smith in order to avoid the extreme temperature in a car when it is cold outside and a driver is wearing heavy clothing thus improving driver comfortability and trust in the mode setting learning. Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Burk (US20220016999) in view of Ricci (US20170247000) and Chong (US20240199009) and Kataoka (US20110251758). Regarding claim 4, Burk as modified by Ricci teaches the mode setting value set generation device according to claim 1, however, does not teach wherein the execution unit is further configured to: determine whether an amount of change of the content of change indicated by the change information is larger than a predetermined specified amount, when the amount of change is larger than the specified amount, send, as the mode setting value set for providing the environment for the mode different from the mode of the used set, information indicating the generated mode setting value set to the vehicle, and when the amount of change is equal to or less than the specified amount, send to the vehicle a request to rewrite the used set with the generated mode setting value set. Chong teaches determine whether an amount of change of the content of change indicated by the change information is larger than a predetermined specified amount ([0048]-[0068] disclosing when the reference position of the following lane mode is changed by a certain amount such as a threshold of 10 %, then the reference position is overwritten by a bias amount allowing the vehicle to be biased based on the driver preference) , information indicating the generated mode setting value set to the vehicle, and when the amount of change is equal to or less than the specified amount, send to the vehicle a request to rewrite the used set with the generated mode setting value set ([0048]-[0068] disclosing when the reference position of the following lane mode is changed by a certain amount such as a threshold of 10 %, then the reference position is overwritten by a bias amount allowing the vehicle to be biased based on the driver preference) , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chong of setting a threshold value to allow a mode such as a lane driving based on conditions and environment around the vehicle yielding predictable results in order to avoid accidents with an environment and remain within the allowed space of environment, combining teaching of a threshold with the setting change of Burk allows the derivation of a maximum allowed change to avoid damages such as hearing damage from a raised volume setting by the user while allowing normal values to be updated. Kataoka teaches when the amount of change is larger than the specified amount, send, as the mode setting value set for providing the environment for the mode different from the mode of the used set ([0010]-[0017], [0113]-[0115] disclosing the determination to cancel a lane keep mode thus changing into a manual or lane change mode based on the change by the driver being more than a threshold). Burk as modified by Ricci and Chong, specifically Chong already teaches the adjusting value when a change is within a threshold for lane keeping, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Burk as modified by Ricci and Chong to combine the teaching of Kataoka in order to cancel the mode from the lane keep when a value is indicative a driver needs a change of lane thus improving preference of driver mode system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods. US20230134306 disclosing the change of setting based on the sun to change window transmittance. US20250128671 disclosing changing setting based on driver preference. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30. 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 14 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 15 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 16 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 17 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 18 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 19 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/083,151 Page 20 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights