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
Claims 14-33 of US Application No. 19/099,109, filed on 28 January 2025, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant canceled claims 1-13 and added claims 14-33 via preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05 May 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 includes both bullet points and indentations to segregate elements or steps of the claim. It is recommended to use only indentations to segregate the elements or steps of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “receiving, by the coordinator system . . . data”, “selecting, by the coordinator system” in claim 1; “coordinator system that is able to be coupled”, “coordinator system configured to select . . . and to generate and to output” (claim 23).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitations “receiving, by the coordinator system . . . data”, “selecting, by the coordinator system” in claim 1; “coordinator system that is able to be coupled”, “coordinator system configured to select . . . and to generate and to output” (claim 23) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sobhany (US 2021/0261050 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, Sobhany discloses real-time contextual vehicle lighting systems and methods and teaches:
receiving, by the coordinator system, via at least one input device, data that define a situation to be created by the actuators (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; user device 150 and/or server 160 may transmit settings or configurations to the vehicle for implementation by the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0025]; trigger criteria and lighting configurations may be defined by a third-party content provider and content providers may indicate lighting cues or configurations for output in conjunction with content output – see at least ¶ [0061]; media content served to the vehicle for output in the vehicle which may include trigger conditions, e.g., lighting cues – see at least ¶ [0061]; at 504, an indication that a trigger criterion is satisfied may be received – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0071]);
selecting, by the coordinator system, in reaction to the receipt of the data, at least one actuator (at 506, a lighting configuration may be selected in response to receipt of trigger criterion at 504 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0072]; lighting system may include a plurality of light emitting devices in the vehicle interior 115 that are controllable by vehicle experience system 110 – see at least ¶ [0020]-[0021]; vehicle experience system 110 can select control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]); and
generating and outputting control signals to the selected at least one actuator (vehicle experience system 110 can generate control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]; at 508, instruction is sent to the lighting system to implement the lighting configuration – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the data defining a situation to be created have the function of meta data that are received by the coordinator system together with content data (trigger criteria and lighting configurations may be defined by a third-party content provider and content providers may indicate lighting cues or configurations for output in conjunction with content output – see at least ¶ [0061]; media content served to the vehicle for output in the vehicle which may include trigger conditions, e.g., lighting cues – see at least ¶ [0061]), wherein the content data are able to be used to directly define control signals for one or more predetermined actuators (media content served to the vehicle for output in the vehicle which may include trigger conditions, e.g., lighting cues – see at least ¶ [0061]), wherein the coordinator system outputs the control signals to the selected one or more actuators in a coordinated manner, in con-junction with outputting the control signals to the one or more predetermined actuators (vehicle experience system 110 can generate control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]; at 508, instruction is sent to the lighting system to implement the lighting configuration – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system generates and outputs two sequential different control signals for one of the at least one selected actuators, thereby creating a situation changing over time (if the second lighting configuration does not have a defined end, the lighting system of the vehicle can maintain the second lighting configuration until a subsequent trigger criterion has been satisfied and a third lighting configuration is output in response to the subsequent trigger criterion – see at least ¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives the data by a single input device (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; user device 150 and/or server 160 may transmit settings or configurations to the vehicle for implementation by the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0025]), selects at least two actuators and generates (at 506, a lighting configuration may be selected in response to receipt of trigger criterion at 504 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0072]; lighting system may include a plurality of light emitting devices in the vehicle interior 115 that are controllable by vehicle experience system 110 – see at least ¶ [0020]-[0021]; vehicle experience system 110 can select control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]) and outputs signals for the at least two selected actuators, thereby defining the situation as a scenery (vehicle experience system 110 can generate control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]; at 508, instruction is sent to the lighting system to implement the lighting configuration – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 18, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives the data by multiple input devices, the data defining together the situation to be created (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; user device 150 and/or server 160 may transmit settings or configurations to the vehicle for implementation by the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system selects at least two actuators (at 506, a lighting configuration may be selected in response to receipt of trigger criterion at 504 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0072]; lighting system may include a plurality of light emitting devices in the vehicle interior 115 that are controllable by vehicle experience system 110 – see at least ¶ [0020]-[0021]; vehicle experience system 110 can select control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]) and generates and outputs signals for the at least two actuators, thereby defining the situation as a scenery (vehicle experience system 110 can generate control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]; at 508, instruction is sent to the lighting system to implement the lighting configuration – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 20, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives data by an input device provided separately to the vehicle (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 21, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives data by at least one sensor of the vehicle (vehicle experience system 110 receives raw data from sensors – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 22, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives data by at least one input device of the vehicle via which a user of the vehicle is enabled to define situations (user may input user profile 420 information – see at least ¶ [0054]; trigger criteria may take user profile data as inputs to determine the lighting outputs – see at least ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 24, Sobhany further teaches:
means to provide artificial intelligence (machine learning adaption module 228 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 25, Sobhany discloses real-time contextual vehicle lighting systems and methods and teaches:
A vehicle with multiple sensors and multiple actuators (vehicle 100 including external sensors and a lighting system having a plurality of light emitting devices – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0017] and [0020]-[0021]), and the coordinator system according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23).
Regarding claim 26, Sobhany further teaches:
at least one input device via which a user of the vehicle is enabled to define the situations (user may input user profile 420 information – see at least ¶ [0054]; trigger criteria may take user profile data as inputs to determine the lighting outputs – see at least ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 27, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system generates and outputs two sequential different control signals for one of the at least one selected actuators, thereby creating a situation changing over time (if the second lighting configuration does not have a defined end, the lighting system of the vehicle can maintain the second lighting configuration until a subsequent trigger criterion has been satisfied and a third lighting configuration is output in response to the subsequent trigger criterion – see at least ¶ [0074]).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives the data by a single input device (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; user device 150 and/or server 160 may transmit settings or configurations to the vehicle for implementation by the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0025]), selects at least two actuators and generates (at 506, a lighting configuration may be selected in response to receipt of trigger criterion at 504 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0072]; lighting system may include a plurality of light emitting devices in the vehicle interior 115 that are controllable by vehicle experience system 110 – see at least ¶ [0020]-[0021]; vehicle experience system 110 can select control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]) and outputs signals for the at least two selected actuators, thereby defining the situation as a scenery (vehicle experience system 110 can generate control signals to implement a lighting configuration – see at least ¶ [0022]; at 508, instruction is sent to the lighting system to implement the lighting configuration – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives the data by multiple input devices, the data defining together the situation to be created (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; user device 150 and/or server 160 may transmit settings or configurations to the vehicle for implementation by the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Sobhany further teaches:
wherein the coordinator system receives data by an input device provided separately to the vehicle (integrated control unit 130 may communicate with user device 150 and/or remote server 160 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2022/0082399 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
