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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 02/06/2025 (claimed priority date 08/15/2022):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim 13 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vehicle operating system” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “vehicle operating system” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 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 is: “vehicle operating system” in claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-20.
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
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-20 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(s) 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-20 recite the limitation/feature “vehicle operating system,” which is not described in the specification in such a way as to understand whether the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” is a structure (e.g., vehicle system(s), subsystem(s), element(s), component(s), part(s), device(s), hardware, etc.), OR it is vehicle system software (e.g., computerized program(s), algorithm(s), protocol(s), etc.), OR it is a combination of both (e.g., firmware). The specification, in numerous paragraphs, only provides citations about what the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” may do (e.g., disable or reduce operation of display, reduce power consumption by one or more displays, improve the user experience, facilitate safety of an operator, etc.), what (e.g., vehicle head unit) executes the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system,” BUT, HOWEVER, the specification is completely silent about what the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” is, or whether it is a structure (e.g., vehicle system(s), subsystem(s), element(s), component(s), part(s), device(s), hardware, etc.), OR vehicle system software (e.g., computerized program(s), algorithm(s), protocol(s), etc.), OR combination of both (e.g., firmware). Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” is vehicle controlling software (e.g., computerized program(s), algorithm(s), protocol(s), etc.) that controls vehicle system(s), subsystem(s), element(s), component(s), part(s), device(s), hardware, etc.), since the vehicle controlling software is being executed by the “vehicle head unit,” (e.g., vehicle computer/controller).
1.1.2 Claims 2-15 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claim 13 recites the limitations/features “determining the usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system that comprises determining whether the operator of the vehicle or the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display of the vehicle head unit;” and “entering the protected operating mode that comprises disabling, responsive to determining the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display, the protected operating mode to allow the one or more passengers to interface with the vehicle operating system via the main display,” which are not described or supported in the specification. The specification merely repeats the claim language, in numerous paragraphs, and is completely silent about any “determining the usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system that comprises determining whether the operator of the vehicle or the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display of the vehicle head unit” and “entering the protected operating mode that comprises disabling, the protected operating mode to allow the one or more passengers to interface with the vehicle operating system via the main display, responsive to determining the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display,” or how these limitations/features/method steps are being executed, performed, achieved, established, made, etc. Clarification is required.
See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63).
See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx .
Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349) … . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
For the purpose of this examination, claim 13 is not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration.
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 1-20 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.
2.1.1 Claim limitation “vehicle operating system” in claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-20 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear, what the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” is, whether it is a structure (e.g., vehicle system(s), subsystem(s), element(s), component(s), part(s), device(s), hardware, etc.), OR vehicle system software (e.g., computerized program(s), algorithm(s), protocol(s), etc.), OR combination of both (e.g., firmware), which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed/specified “vehicle operating system” is vehicle controlling software (e.g., computerized program(s), algorithm(s), protocol(s), etc.) that controls vehicle system(s), subsystem(s), element(s), component(s), part(s), device(s), hardware, etc.), since the vehicle controlling software is being executed by the “vehicle head unit,” (e.g., vehicle computer/controller).
2.1.2 Claims 2-15 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.3 Claim 13 recites the limitations/features “determining the usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system that comprises determining whether the operator of the vehicle or the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display of the vehicle head unit;” and “entering the protected operating mode that comprises disabling, responsive to determining the one or more passengers of the vehicle are using the main display, the protected operating mode to allow the one or more passengers to interface with the vehicle operating system via the main display,” which is unclear to understand how these method steps are being executed, performed, achieved, established, made, etc., which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, these limitations/features/method steps are not described or supported in the specification, as discussed and presented above, in the instant office action, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 13 is not given a patentable weight and withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-3, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAMURA (US201401040820) in view of IGARASHI (US20180329414).
As per claims 1, 16 and 20, NAKAMURA discloses through the invention (see entire document), a method/computing device/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, comprising:
executing, by a vehicle head unit of a vehicle (fig. 1, Para [0019, 0022] – teaching control unit 5), an instance of a vehicle operating system (Para [0019, 0022, 0025, 0027, 0037, 0039] – teaching controlling a process of controlling the display range displayed on the display screen; controlling the engine speed; controlling reduction of the battery consumption);
determining, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, an operating context in which the vehicle is currently operating (Para [0022] – teaching acquiring and displaying a battery voltage (battery remaining capacity)); and
entering, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, and based on the operating context, a protected operating mode in which the vehicle operating system dynamically adapts one or more operational features of the vehicle operating system (Para [0022-0027] – teaching changing display range depending on acquired battery voltage (battery remaining capacity); switching to economy mode to adjusts drive of a motor to extend a travel distance).
NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) entering, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, and based on the operating context, a protected operating mode in which the vehicle operating system dynamically adapts one or more operational features of the vehicle operating system to facilitate safety of an operator of the vehicle.
However, IGARASHI discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0045] – teaching a battery device 2310 including a secondary battery that measures the temperature, an output voltage, the remaining capacity, and the like of the secondary battery and outputs the measured values to the battery control unit 2300 that performs calculation processing using input information from the battery device 2310 and performs control such as temperature adjustment control of the secondary battery and control of a cooling device or other devices mounted to the battery device 2310, wherein the Examiner finds that the “cooling vehicle battery,” in the IGARASHI reference above, teaches on “facilitating safety of an operator of the vehicle,” because it is well known in the art that if a vehicle battery gets overheat, it’ll create unsafe condition and/or situation for both vehicle driver/operator and vehicle itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by IGARASHI, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a drive assistance device, a drive assistance method, and a moving body capable of suitably assisting driving operation of a driver using an automatic driving function (see entire IGARASHI document, particularly Para [0008]).
As per claim 2 and 17, NAKAMURA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) entering the protected operating mode that comprises entering the protected operating mode in which the vehicle operating system dynamically adjusts power settings of the vehicle to reduce power consumption of a battery powering the vehicle (fig. 1-4, Para [0001, 0003, 0020-0023] – teaching switching display screen to one of display patterns each reduced in the display range in accordance with the battery remaining capacity and the display content, or in accordance with the battery remaining capacity, and the operation mode and display content).
As per claim 3 and 18, NAKAMURA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining the operating context that comprises one or more of: determining a usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system by one or more passengers in the vehicle; determining a presence of the one or more passengers in the vehicle; determining weather conditions in which the vehicle is currently operating; and determining an operational state of the vehicle (fig. 1-4, Para [0001, 0003, 0008-0010, 0020-0023, 0030, 0034, 0039-0040] – teaching switching display screen to one of display patterns each reduced in the display range in accordance with the battery remaining capacity and the display content, or in accordance with the battery remaining capacity, and the operation mode and display content; displaying and maintaining displayed information necessary for a user).
Claim 13 withdrawn from consideration.
2. Claims 4-8, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of NAKAMURA and IGARASHI, further in view of Boyer (US20050132407).
As per claims 4 and 19, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) instance of the vehicle operating system that facilitates concurrent access by multiple user profiles, wherein the method further comprises presenting, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, multiple user interfaces across multiple displays communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit, each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of the multiple user profiles, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises disabling one or more of the multiple displays based on one or more of the usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system, the presence of the one or more passengers of the vehicle, the weather conditions, and the operational state of the vehicle.
However, Boyer discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in claim 1 – teaching entertainment system for use on a passenger transportation vehicle, said system comprising: (a) a plurality of passenger terminals, said passenger terminals comprising: (1) a housing; (2) a first storage medium for storage of digital data comprising a plurality of audio-visual content items; (3) a viewing screen; (4) audio output interface; (5) a passenger interface, said passenger interface adapted to allow a passenger to select at least one of said audio-visual content items for listening and/or display from said first storage medium; (b) a power supply system, said power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals; (c) a transportation vehicle host computer, said host computer comprising a local network manager for management of digital data flow to and from each of said passenger terminals; (d) a local network, said local network providing digital communication between said transportation vehicle host and said plurality of passenger terminals, wherein the Examiner finds that the above, in the Boyer reference, teaches on “concurrent access by multiple users,” “multiple user interfaces communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit,” “each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of the multiple user,” “distributing/adapting power requirements based on one or more of the usage of the instance of the vehicle operating system, the presence of the one or more passengers of the vehicle.”
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Boyer reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and Boyer teach on vehicle(s) with multiple users/passengers.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the Boyer reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
As per claim 5, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) one or more passengers of the vehicle associated with at least one of the multiple user profiles.
However, Boyer discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly fig. 1, 8, Para [0020] – teaching passenger terminal 20 that works in conjunction with a transport vehicle on-board host digital storage and processing computer unit 22 to generate electronic revenue slip files from passengers 24 who pay for viewing personally selected audio-visual content such as movies from a list of movie titles, songs from a list of song titles and/or performers, or other audio visual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
As per claim 6, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) instance of the vehicle operating system that facilitates concurrent access by multiple user profiles, wherein the operational state of the vehicle comprises a battery life, wherein the method further comprises presenting, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, multiple user interfaces across multiple displays communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit, each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of the multiple user profiles, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises disabling one or more of the multiple displays based on the weather conditions and the battery life.
However, Boyer discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly fig. 1, 8, Para [0020, 0029], claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
As per claim 7, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) instance of the vehicle operating system that facilitates concurrent access by multiple user profiles, wherein the operational state of the vehicle comprises a battery life, wherein the method further comprises presenting, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, multiple user interfaces across multiple displays communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit, each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of the multiple user profiles, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises entering, based on one or more of the weather conditions and the battery life, an emergency mode in which one or more applications executed by the vehicle operating system are executed in a restricted access mode to preserve the battery life.
However, Boyer discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly fig. 1, 8, Para [0020, 0029], claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
As per claim 8, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) determining the operational state of the vehicle that comprises determining an emergency state in which safety of the vehicle is compromised, wherein the method further comprises presenting, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, multiple user interfaces across multiple displays communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit, each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of multiple user profiles, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises enabling all of the multiple displays based on the emergency state to enable the multiple user profiles to report the emergency state of the vehicle.
However, IGARASHI discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0045] – teaching a battery device 2310 including a secondary battery that measures the temperature, an output voltage, the remaining capacity, and the like of the secondary battery and outputs the measured values to the battery control unit 2300 that performs calculation processing using input information from the battery device 2310 and performs control such as temperature adjustment control of the secondary battery and control of a cooling device or other devices mounted to the battery device 2310, wherein the Examiner finds that the “cooling vehicle battery,” in the IGARASHI reference above, teaches on “facilitating safety of an operator of the vehicle,” because it is well known in the art that if a vehicle battery gets overheat, it’ll create unsafe condition and/or situation for both vehicle driver/operator and vehicle itself.
Boyer, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly fig. 1, 8, Para [0020, 0029], claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by IGARASHI, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a drive assistance device, a drive assistance method, and a moving body capable of suitably assisting driving operation of a driver using an automatic driving function (see entire IGARASHI document, particularly Para [0008]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
As per claim 15, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) instance of the vehicle operating system that facilitates concurrent access by multiple user profiles, wherein the method further comprises: authorizing, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, the multiple user profiles to interface with the instance of the vehicle operating system; presenting, by the instance of the vehicle operating system, multiple user interfaces across multiple displays communicatively coupled to the vehicle head unit, each of the multiple user interfaces associated with one or more of the multiple user profiles; and interfacing, via the multiple user interfaces, with multiple users associated with the one or more of the multiple user profiles to enable the multiple users to interface with the instance of the vehicle operating system for purposes of controlling functionality associated with the vehicle head unit.
However, Boyer discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly fig. 1, 8, Para [0020, 0029], claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Boyer, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance power supply system adapted to supply power to one or more of said passenger terminals (see entire Boyer document, particularly claim 1).
3. Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of NAKAMURA and IGARASHI, further in view of WANG (CN109379502A).
As per claim 9, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) determining the operational state of the vehicle comprises determining an emergency state in which safety of the vehicle is compromised, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises disabling all audio playback by the vehicle head unit based on the emergency state.
However, WANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly Para [0031] – teaching MCU control module that shuts down the audio module and the backup power module, causing the internal DSP audio circuit to stop working and reducing the power consumption of the vehicle T-BOX; MCU control module that immediately activates the backup power module and the audio module, allowing the backup power module to power the audio module and put the internal DSP audio circuit into operation.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by WANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable the vehicle-mounted T-BOX to automatically switch to a backup power module for power supply and activate the audio path of the internal DSP audio circuit to achieve emergency call rescue when the vehicle suffers severe damage, the vehicle battery malfunctions, or the external audio path malfunctions (see entire WANG document, particularly Para [0007]).
As per claim 10, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) determining the operational state of the vehicle comprises determining an emergency state in which safety of the vehicle is compromised, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises disabling all audio control except for audio controls related to the emergency state.
However, WANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly Para [0004-000-5, 0007, 0023, 0029-0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by WANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable the vehicle-mounted T-BOX to automatically switch to a backup power module for power supply and activate the audio path of the internal DSP audio circuit to achieve emergency call rescue when the vehicle suffers severe damage, the vehicle battery malfunctions, or the external audio path malfunctions (see entire WANG document, particularly Para [0007]).
As per claim 11, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) determining the operational state of the vehicle that comprises determining an emergency state in which safety of the vehicle is compromised, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises: automatically communicating a state of the operator of the vehicle while in the emergency state; and transferring audio control of the vehicle operating system to the one or more passengers based on the state of the operator of the vehicle.
However, WANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly Para [0004-000-5, 0007, 0023, 0029-0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by WANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable the vehicle-mounted T-BOX to automatically switch to a backup power module for power supply and activate the audio path of the internal DSP audio circuit to achieve emergency call rescue when the vehicle suffers severe damage, the vehicle battery malfunctions, or the external audio path malfunctions (see entire WANG document, particularly Para [0007]).
As per claim 12, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) transferring the audio control of the vehicle operating system that enables the one or more passengers to initiate an emergency telephone call to an emergency service.
However, WANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly Para [0004-000-5, 0007, 0023, 0029-0032, 0036-0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by WANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable the vehicle-mounted T-BOX to automatically switch to a backup power module for power supply and activate the audio path of the internal DSP audio circuit to achieve emergency call rescue when the vehicle suffers severe damage, the vehicle battery malfunctions, or the external audio path malfunctions (see entire WANG document, particularly Para [0007]).
As per claim 14, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) determining the operating context that comprises determining that the vehicle is entering a potentially unsafe operating context in which the operator of the vehicle requires additional attention, and wherein entering the protected operating mode comprises entering, responsive to entering the potentially unsafe operating context, the protected operating mode in which the vehicle operating system lowers a volume of audio playback by the vehicle head unit.
However, WANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, claims, particularly Para [0004-000-5, 0007, 0023, 0029-0032, 0036-0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of NAKAMURA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by WANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable the vehicle-mounted T-BOX to automatically switch to a backup power module for power supply and activate the audio path of the internal DSP audio circuit to achieve emergency call rescue when the vehicle suffers severe damage, the vehicle battery malfunctions, or the external audio path malfunctions (see entire WANG document, particularly Para [0007]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Yamauchi (US20150194124) – (see entire Yamauchi document, particularly abstract – teaching an in-vehicle display device that communicates with a mobile information terminal and displays image information of the mobile information terminal on a vehicular display; the in-vehicle display device that includes: a mode detecting device that detects whether the mobile information terminal is in a normal operation mode or a power saving mode; and a display control device that changes a display mode of the vehicular display from a normal display mode to a power saving display mode for reducing an electric power consumption relating to the image display under a condition that the mobile information terminal is switched from the normal operation mode to the power saving mode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
