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 .
Claim Objections
The claims recite, “one or more passengers sharing a common conveyance”. One passenger cannot share a common conveyance. If there is a shared common conveyance, the claim might want to recite, -- two or more passengers sharing a common conveyance --.
35 USC § 101 discussion
It could be argued that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the mental process of data collection and selective data distribution. However, the claims positively recite the structure of a vehicle. The vehicle is a non-abstract, non-mental process, statutory claimed item, thus making the entire claim statutory. The vehicle is an integral feature of the claims and cannot be randomly declared insignificant. Per the current guidelines, Step 2A, Prong One is NO. Per Pathway B, the claims qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Divine et al. (US PG pub 2013/0030645).
Divine et al. shows,
In regards to claims 1, 10 and 16,
A computer-implemented method for configuring interactive media for one or more passengers sharing a common conveyance (infotainment system, figures 1 & 2), the computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors, one or more passengers in a vehicle; (Paragraph [0032], “Upon detecting the new occupant, the control algorithm will first identify the occupant and retrieve any available characteristics about the occupant as indicated at 32.”)
receiving, by the one or more processors, profile data and trip data for each of the one or more passengers from one or more databases; (Paragraph [0033], “In another example, the occupant may carry a personal mobile computing device, such as a phone, a smartphone, a portable media player, a handheld global positioning device, a laptop computer, etc. Such computing devices may be queried by the infotainment system to gather information about the occupant.” The personal computing device and the information queried from it is considered to have at least one database. The information derived is considered to make up profile data.
Paragraph [0047], "Navigational information retrieved, for example, from GPS device 16 can also be used to update the vehicle occupant map as indicated at 56. For instance, a vehicle's point of origination or destination may be used to designate the atmosphere during the trip." This is considered to be an example of trip data.)
selecting, by the one or more processors, interactive media content from one or more media databases based on the profile data and the trip data; (paragraph [0067], "Assuming all of the vehicle occupants have a common interest in jazz music, a corresponding recommendation to tune the radio to a local jazz station is implemented by the content delivery engine." The delivery engine is considered to a processor. Providing the recommendation of a local jazz station on the radio for all of the vehicle occupants is the selecting of an interactive media content from one or more media databases based on the profile data and the trip data.) and
delivering, by the one or more processors, the interactive media content to at least one interactive media player corresponding to the one or more passengers. (From above, the content delivery engine.)
In regards to claims 2 and 11,
wherein the receiving the profile data and the trip data for each of the one or more passengers from the one or more databases includes: receiving, by the one or more processors, configuration data for the vehicle. (see figure 2)
In regards to claims 3 and 12,
wherein the profile data includes at least one of: passenger identity data, preference profile data, trip purposes data, favorite character data, amusement ride data, social graph data, social status data, social meeting topic data, activity level data, outdoor activity preference data, favorite team data, favorite player data, favorite artist data, favorite song data, preferred merchandise data, shopping style data, culture data, age data, personal interests data, and interactive content preference data. (Paragraph [0033], “In another example, the occupant may carry a personal mobile computing device, such as a phone, a smartphone, a portable media player, a handheld global positioning device, a laptop computer, etc. Such computing devices may be queried by the infotainment system to gather information about the occupant. In some instances, the queried information can be identifying information for the device user.” This is passenger identity data.)
In regards to claims 4, 5, 13 and 14,
wherein the trip data includes at least one of: vehicle route origin data, vehicle route destination data, route duration data, and one or more locations along a route. Wherein the interactive media content corresponds to at least one of the one or more locations along the route. (Figures 13A and 13B)
In regards to claims 6, 15, and 17
wherein the selecting interactive media content from the one or more media databases includes: utilizing, by the one or more processors, one or more predictive Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms to select and/or configure the interactive media content. (Paragraph [0044], “More advanced techniques of acquiring relationship information are contemplated and may include inferring relationships from conversations between occupants using known artificial intelligent technology.”)
In regards to claims 7 and 18,
the computer-implemented method further comprising: configuring, by the one or more processors, one or more mood-sensitive content components of the interactive media content based on the profile data and/or the trip data. (See paragraph [0029], the system has biometric sensors (can detect mood) and may interface directly with the system.)
In regards to claims 8 and 19,
wherein the at least one interactive media player is configured to play the interactive media content. (For examples, see paragraph [0037])
In regards to claims 9 and 20,
the computer-implemented method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, one or more emotion indicators from the one or more passengers; and refining, by the one or more processors, the interactive media content based on the one or more emotion indicators. (See paragraph [0029], using visual and audio analysis to determine mood is considered to be emotion indicators.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims have similar subject matter, broader limitations, and minor re-wording.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
