DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 3, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recites a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium. The body of claim positively recites the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium operatively coupled to a processor. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus.
Do claims 18 and 20 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a data processing apparatus and a vehicle, respectively. The body of claims 18 and 20 each recite at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed apparatus and vehicle. Therefore, each claims 18 and 20 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claims 1, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 recite the limitations of
providing an instruction for controlling a system of the vehicle based on the first specification, the second specification, the first time, and the second time;
recognizing the user of the vehicle;
the third signal is provided by a third sensor to a data processing apparatus;
storing the first signal in a database of the vehicle.
The providing, recognizing and storing limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a data processing apparatus” nothing in the claim precludes the providing, recognizing and storing steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “data processing apparatus” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually provide an instruction for controlling a system of the vehicle based on the first specification, the second specification, the first time, and the second time; recognize the user of the vehicle; provide the third signal to a data processing apparatus via the third sensor; and
store the first signal in a database of the vehicle. An instruction to control a vehicle system based on specifications and times is generally considered abstract since this particular clause in the claims is framed as a broad mathematical algorithm without any specific concrete, technological implementation. Likewise, recognizing and
storing information is generally considered abstract since these particular clauses are framed as a broad mathematical algorithm without any specific concrete, technological implementation. As such, these limitations are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 4 – 6, 8 – 10 and 14 recite several additional elements:
obtaining the first signal and the second signal from a first sensor of the vehicle and a second sensor of the vehicle, respectively;
obtaining the first sensor and the second sensor are from different sensor types;
obtaining a first signal at a first time indicating a first specification relating to a user of a vehicle, wherein the first specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle;
obtaining a second signal at a second time later than first time, as an indicative of a second specification relating to the user of the vehicle, wherein the second specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, and wherein the second specification is different from the first specification;
obtaining one, from at least two, stored data sets relating to different users based on the first signal and the second signal, wherein the obtained data set indicating at least one setting of the system; and wherein the instruction comprising the at least one setting of the system;
obtaining at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification relating to the user of the vehicle; wherein the generated specification is obtained at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, based on at least one of the first specification, the second specification, the first time, the second time, and a time interval between the first and the second time; and wherein the instruction is further based on the at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification; and
obtaining a third signal at a third time later than the first time and the second time; wherein the third signal indicating a third specification relating to the user of the vehicle; wherein the third specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle; and wherein the instruction is further based on the third signal.
The obtaining steps recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of
gathering an electronic representation of the first signal and the second signal from a first sensor of the vehicle and a second sensor of the vehicle;
gathering an electronic representation of the first sensor and the second sensor are from different sensor types;
gathering an electronic representation of a first signal at a first time indicating a first specification relating to a user of a vehicle, wherein the first specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle;
gathering an electronic representation of a second signal at a second time later than first time, as an indicative of a second specification relating to the user of the vehicle, wherein the second specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, and wherein the second specification is different from the first specification;
gathering an electronic representation of one, from at least two, stored data sets relating to different users based on the first signal and the second signal, wherein the obtained data set indicating at least one setting of the system, and wherein the instruction comprising the at least one setting of the system;
gathering an electronic representation of at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification relating to the user of the vehicle, wherein the generated specification is obtained at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, based on at least one of the first specification, the second specification, the first time, the second time, and a time interval between the first and the second time; and wherein the instruction is further based on the at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification; and
gathering an electronic representation of a third signal at a third time later than the first time and the second time, wherein the third signal indicating a third specification relating to the user of the vehicle, wherein the third specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, and wherein the instruction is further based on the third signal), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are ineligible.
As to claims 2, 3, 7, 11 – 13 and 19, the additional elements in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 pre-AIA 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, 2, 7, 9 – 12 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited U.S. Patent No. 11,794,676 B1 to Benqassmi et al. (herein after "Benqassmi et al. patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 18 – 20,
the Benqassmi et al. patent discloses a vehicle (105)(see FIG. 1, Col. 8, lns 30 – 39 and Col. 10, lns 12 – 42 for “a vehicle that is operable by the user 120”) comprising:
a data processing apparatus (130) and configured to (see Col. 11, lns 12 – 13, where “[t]he vehicle 105 may include a computing system 130 that is onboard the vehicle 105”):
obtain a first signal at a first time indicating a first specification relating to a user of the vehicle, wherein the first specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle (see FIG. 4, Col. 19, lns 52 – 63, and Col. 20, lns 34 – 68);
obtain a second signal at a second time later than first time, as an indicative of a second specification relating to the user of the vehicle, wherein the second specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, and wherein the second specification is different from the first specification (see FIG. 4, Col. 19, lns 52 – 63, and Col. 20, lns 34 – 68); and
provide an instruction for controlling a system of the vehicle based on the first specification, the second specification, the first time, and the second time (see Col. 23, lns 1 – 5).
As to claim 2,
the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose the first signal being a stored signal used for controlling a second system of the vehicle. (See FIG. 4 and Col. 20, lns 34 – 48.)
As to claim 7,
the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose the instruction being further based on a time interval between the first time and the second time.. (See Col. 19, ln 64 through Col. 20, ln 7.)
As to claim 9,
the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose obtaining at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification relating to the user of the vehicle; wherein the generated specification is obtained at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle, based on at least one of the first specification, the second specification, the first time, the second time, and a time interval between the first and the second time; and wherein the instruction is further based on the at least one of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning generated specification. (See Col. 20, lns 49 – 55.)
As to claims 10 and 11,
the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose obtaining a third signal at a third time later than the first time and the second time; wherein the third signal indicating a third specification relating to the user of the vehicle; wherein the third specification is at least one from a user characteristic, a user position, a user movement, and a user interaction with the vehicle; and wherein the instruction is further based on the third signal. (See FIG. 4 and Col. 19, lns 52 – 63 and Col. 20, lns 34 – 48.)
As to claim 12,
the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose that the first time and the second time are from different usage events of the vehicle, wherein the different usage events comprising at least two of: an approaching the vehicle event, an entering the vehicle event, a starting the vehicle event, a driving event, a parking event, a turning off the vehicle event and a leaving the vehicle event. (See Col. 19, lns 52 – 63.)
As to claim 16,
the Benqassmi et al. patent discloses “the sensor data may acquire image data”. (See Col. 12, lns 53 – 54.) Thus, the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose the second sensor generating the first signal in a form of images and videos of the user.
As to claim 17,
the Benqassmi et al. patent discloses “an example computing architecture 200 for generating automated vehicle actions . . . may include: (i) various databases for stored information”. (See Col. 16, lns 3 – 6.) The Benqassmi et al. patent also discloses that “[t]he computing system 130 may include various services and databases that may be implemented on the vehicle 105 for generating automated vehicle actions based on a learned routine of the user 120. In an embodiment, the computing system 130 may include: vehicle function services 205A-C, an embedded learning service 210, a model database 215, a vehicle action manager 220, a vehicle embedded service 225, and an automated vehicle action database 230.” (See Col. 16, lns 16 – 23.) Thus, the Benqassmi et al. patent is considered to disclose the method being configured to store the first signal in a database of the vehicle.
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 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.
Claims 3 – 6, 8, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Benqassmi et al. patent in view of cited DE 102013220240 A1 to Winklhofer et al. (herein after “Winklhofer et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 3,
the Benqassmi et al. patent discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the first signal indicating a first interaction of the user with a first unit of the vehicle, and the second signal indicating a second interaction of the user with a second unit of the vehicle.
The Winklhofer et al. publication relates to a system for detecting an occupant presence inside a vehicle. In particular, the Winklhofer et al. publication discloses a pressure/primary sensor 7 integrated into the seat surface to record the pressure profile of a person so that a distinction can be made between people and other objects. Winklhofer also discloses a number of secondary sensors that provide information which can be used to verify the information collected by the primary sensors or to optimize their use. These secondary sensors include, among others, seat belt contact sensors 8, door contact sensors 9 and all operable buttons 10 in the vehicle interior. (See ¶52 – ¶56.) Such disclosure suggests the first signal indicating a first interaction of the user with a first unit of the vehicle, and the second signal indicating a second interaction of the user with a second unit of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Benqassmi et al. patent so that the first signal indicates a first interaction of the user with a first unit of the vehicle, and the second signal indicates a second interaction of the user with a second unit of the vehicle, as suggested by the Winklhofer et al. publication, in order to detect the presence of an occupant inside a vehicle.
As to claim 4,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication discloses that the first signal is obtained from a first sensor of the vehicle, and the second signal is obtained from a second sensor of the vehicle. (See ¶52 – ¶56 of the Winklhofer et al. publication.)
As to claim 5,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication discloses that the first sensor and the second sensor are from different sensor types. (See ¶52 – ¶56 of the Winklhofer et al. publication.)
As to claim 6,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication discloses that the first sensor and the second sensor are from different units of the vehicle. (See ¶52 – ¶56 of the Winklhofer et al. publication.)
As to claim 8,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication is considered to disclose obtaining one, from at least two, stored data sets relating to different users based on the first signal and the second signal, wherein the obtained data set indicating at least one setting of the system; and wherein the instruction comprising the at least one setting of the system. (See ¶71 of the Winklhofer et al. publication.)
As to claim 13,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication discloses the first sensor and the second sensor of the vehicle associated to one of the same system and different systems. (See ¶52 – ¶56.)
As to claim 15,
the Benqassmi et al. patent, as modified by the Winklhofer et al. publication, discloses the claimed invention except for the third signal is provided by a third sensor to a data processing apparatus.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Benqassmi et al. patent so that the third signal is provided by a third sensor to a data processing apparatus, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Benqassmi et al. patent in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0367682 A1 to Kim (herein after “Kim publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 14,
the Benqassmi et al. patent discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning process being configured to recognize the user of the vehicle.
Using Artificial Intelligence and/or Machine Learning to recognize the user of the vehicle is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Kim publication who discloses that “processor 124 may learn various shapes and characteristics of passengers recognized as passengers in an image of vehicle interior by machine learning, analyze an image and identify passengers through an algorithm thus learnt, and estimate the number of boarding passengers based on the identified passengers.” (See ¶86.)
Such disclosure suggests the Artificial Intelligence and/or Machine Learning process being configured to recognize the user of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the patent/publication so that the Artificial Intelligence and/or Machine Learning process is configured to recognize the user of the vehicle, as suggested by the Kim publication, in order to detect the presence of an occupant inside a vehicle.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights