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 11–26 of U.S. Application No. 19/479,539 filed on 10/28/2025 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “deactivating the vehicle function, in particular if the current period does not match the at least one period of the schedule.” The phrase “in particular” is exemplary and may be treated as non-limiting under BRI. Prefer omitting “in particular” or rewriting as a positive limitation.
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 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of activating vehicle features based on a schedule. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 16 is directed to a system of controlling a vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 11 and 16 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 11 and 16 recites: A vehicle function system for a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle function controller that is configured:
to retrieve a schedule, the schedule comprising at least one period and an activable vehicle function;
to compare a current period with the at least one period of the schedule;
and to activate the activable vehicle function if the current period corresponds to the at least one period in the schedule;
and at least one vehicle function device that can be arranged on the vehicle and that is configured to provide the vehicle function.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “ compare, activate, …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle function system for a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle function controller that is configured:
to retrieve a schedule, the schedule comprising at least one period and an activable vehicle function;
to compare a current period with the at least one period of the schedule;
and to activate the activable vehicle function if the current period corresponds to the at least one period in the schedule;
and at least one vehicle function device that can be arranged on the vehicle and that is configured to provide the vehicle function.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “controller” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the retrieve, provide, by a controller is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The controller is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “controller” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-26 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 212-15 and 17-26 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 11 and 16.
Therefore, claims 11-26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 11-12, 16, 20, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akisada et al. (US20100241306A1) in view of Usami (US20050046760A1), hereinafter referred to as Akisada and Usami respectively.
Regarding Claims 11 and 26: Akisada discloses a method for activating a vehicle function for a vehicle (“An ion generating system for using in a vehicle of this invention comprises an ion generator and a controller. … The controller is configured to start operating the ion generator upon seeing that a certain condition is satisfied.” [0005]).
retrieving a schedule, the schedule comprising at least one period and an activable vehicle function (“this system further comprises an operation scheduler 130 for setting an operation time of the ion generator 10. The judging section 160 is configured to output the operation start signal and the operation stop signal on the basis of information including an operation start time or an operation stop time in the operation scheduler 130.” [0054]). (“The operation scheduler 130 is configured to be set the operation start time and the operation stop time. The time information set to the operation scheduler 130 is sent to the judging section 160.” [0089]). (“The operation scheduler is provided for setting an operation start time of starting the operation of the ion generator.” [0023]);
and activating the activable vehicle function if the current period corresponds to the at least one period in the schedule (“the controller is configured to start the ion generator upon receiving an on signal issued from the operation scheduler at the operating start time.” [0023]). (“On the basis of the time information, the judging section 160 determines the operation schedule and sends the operation start signal ON and the operation stop signal OFF to the ion generator 10.” [0089]).
Akisada does not explicitly teach comparing a current period with the at least one period of the schedule.
However, Usami does teach comparing a current period with the at least one period of the schedule (“It reads the current time from the clock 20. If the start time is included in the schedules stored in the memory 5, the display control circuit 10 compares the current time with the scheduled start time.” [0023]). (“the display control circuit 10 compares the current time with the scheduled start time and determines whether the current time is five minutes ahead of the scheduled start time.” [0024]). (“The display control circuit 10 reads the current time from the clock 20 (S18) and determines whether the current time is five minutes before the scheduled start time (S19).” [0029]). (“The clock 20 detects a calendar day and the current time.” [0020]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine Akisada’s scheduled activation of a vehicle cabin function with Usami’s explicit current-time-versus-schedule comparison and calendar clock, to reliably trigger the scheduled vehicle function at the intended period (both already solve time-based pre-activation of vehicle devices). Reasonable expectation of success: both use onboard controllers, clocks/time info, and stored schedules. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Usami, [0020], [0023], [0029].)
Regarding Claim 12: Akisada discloses wherein at least one of the following is provided:
retrieving a person's intention as to whether the activated vehicle function should continue to be provided, deactivating the vehicle function, in particular if the current period does not match the at least one period of the schedule and calling up a schedule via a data interface of the vehicle. (“the operation scheduler is configured to enter an operation stop time of stopping the operation of the ion generator. The controller is configured to stop the ion generator upon receiving an off signal issued from the operation scheduler at the operation stop time.” [0024]). (“sends the operation start signal ON and the operation stop signal OFF to the ion generator 10.” [0089]);
Regarding Claims 16, 20 and 24: Akisada discloses a vehicle function system for a vehicle (“An ion generation system for using in the vehicle in this invention is provided for being incorporated into a vehicle. The ion generating system comprises an ion generator 10 and a controller 100.” [0047]).
a vehicle function controller that is configured:
to retrieve a schedule, the schedule comprising at least one period and an activable vehicle function (“this system further comprises an operation scheduler 130 for setting an operation time of the ion generator 10. The judging section 160 is configured to output the operation start signal and the operation stop signal on the basis of information including an operation start time or an operation stop time in the operation scheduler 130.” [0054]). (“The operation scheduler 130 is configured to be set the operation start time and the operation stop time. The time information set to the operation scheduler 130 is sent to the judging section 160.” [0089]). (“The operation scheduler is provided for setting an operation start time of starting the operation of the ion generator.” [0023]);
and to activate the activable vehicle function if the current period corresponds to the at least one period in the schedule (“the controller is configured to start the ion generator upon receiving an on signal issued from the operation scheduler at the operating start time.” [0023]). (“On the basis of the time information, the judging section 160 determines the operation schedule and sends the operation start signal ON and the operation stop signal OFF to the ion generator 10.” [0089]).;
and at least one vehicle function device that can be arranged on the vehicle and that is configured to provide the vehicle function (“The ion generator 10 is, for example, disposed on the ceiling of a vehicle interior shown in FIG. 1 to dispense ion to passenger’s room. However, it is possible to dispose the ion generator at an air outlet of an air conditioner.” [0047]). (“The ion generator 10 and the controller 100 are connected to a vehicle’s battery…” [0051]).
Akisada does not explicitly teach to compare a current period with the at least one period of the schedule.
However, Usami does teach to compare a current period with the at least one period of the schedule (“It reads the current time from the clock 20. If the start time is included in the schedules stored in the memory 5, the display control circuit 10 compares the current time with the scheduled start time.” [0023]). (“the display control circuit 10 compares the current time with the scheduled start time and determines whether the current time is five minutes ahead of the scheduled start time.” [0024]). (“The display control circuit 10 reads the current time from the clock 20 (S18) and determines whether the current time is five minutes before the scheduled start time (S19).” [0029]). (“The clock 20 detects a calendar day and the current time.” [0020]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine Akisada’s scheduled activation of a vehicle cabin function with Usami’s explicit current-time-versus-schedule comparison and calendar clock, to reliably trigger the scheduled vehicle function at the intended period (both already solve time-based pre-activation of vehicle devices). Reasonable expectation of success because both use onboard controllers, clocks/time info, and stored schedules. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Usami, [0020], [0023], [0029].)
Claims 13-15, 17, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akisada in view of Usami, and further in view of Pendikatla et al. (US20240025336A1), hereinafter referred to as Pendikatla.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the activable vehicle function is configured as a cosmetic vehicle function.
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the activable vehicle function is configured as a cosmetic vehicle function (“downloadable themes related to holidays … seasonal themes”; “generating lighting effects, graphics, and/or sounds” [0034]). (“theme-based control over lighting, visual displays, and/or audio systems of the vehicle” [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply Akisada/Usami’s schedule-compare-activate control to a cosmetic/ambience vehicle function as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to enhance occupant experience on holidays/theme days using known schedule triggers. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Pendikatla, [0034], [0046])
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls a display of the vehicle,
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls a display of the vehicle (“an infotainment system 43 including control over audio and display screen outputs corresponding to the ambient lighting theme” [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the scheduled activable function of Akisada/Usami to control a vehicle display as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to present scheduled visual content to occupants or externally. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Pendikatla, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls a sound generator of the vehicle.
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls a sound generator of the vehicle (“generating lighting effects, graphics, and/or sounds” [0034]). (“an infotainment system 43 including control over audio and display screen outputs corresponding to the ambient lighting theme” [0045]). (“theme-based control over lighting, visual displays, and/or audio systems of the vehicle” [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to apply Akisada/Usami’s schedule-compare-activate method to control a vehicle sound generator / audio system as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to provide period-triggered acoustic ambiance. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Pendikatla, [0034], [0045], [0046]).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle function device is configured as a display of the vehicle.
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the vehicle function device is configured as a display of the vehicle (“an infotainment system 43 including control over audio and display screen outputs corresponding to the ambient lighting theme” [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Akisada/Usami’s vehicle function device as a vehicle display as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to present scheduled visual content to occupants. (Pendikatla, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the display is configured as smart lighting.
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the display is configured as smart lighting (“A system is provided for creating a vehicle lighting atmosphere of a vehicle. The system includes ambient lighting, the ambient lighting including a plurality of lights configured for illuminating an interior of the vehicle or an exterior of the vehicle with a selectable light color. The system further includes a computerized vehicle lighting controller.” [0005]). (“an ambient interior lighting module 41 … an ambient exterior lighting module 42 disposed upon an exterior of the vehicle” [0045]). (“selecting a lighting intensity based upon a sensed ambient lighting level or based upon a time of day or enabling a user to adjust a brightness, contrast, hue, etc. of the displayed lights.” [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the Claim 17 display/device as smart/ambient lighting modules as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to provide period-triggered ambiance lighting. (Pendikatla, [0005], [0045], [0062]).
Regarding Claims 21 and 23:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls at least one interior display or an exterior display
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls at least one interior display or an exterior display (“ambient interior lighting module 41 … ambient exterior lighting module 42 … infotainment system 43 including control over audio and display screen outputs” [0045]). (“A side window 140 equipped with a smart glass application is additionally illustrated. … A window in the device 100, including a front windscreen, a rear window, and/or a panel upon a top surface of the vehicle may be similarly equipped with a smart glass application.” [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the scheduled activable function of Akisada/Usami to control a vehicle display as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to present scheduled visual content to occupants or externally. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Pendikatla, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 22:
The combination of Akisada/Usami does not explicitly teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls at least one loudspeaker or a noise emitter.
However, Pendikatla does teach wherein the activable vehicle function controls at least one loudspeaker or a noise emitter (“generating lighting effects, graphics, and/or sounds” [0034]). (“control over audio and display screen outputs corresponding to the ambient lighting theme” [0045]). (“theme-based control over lighting, visual displays, and/or audio systems of the vehicle” [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to apply Akisada/Usami’s schedule-compare-activate method to control a vehicle sound generator / audio system as taught by Pendikatla with reasonable expectation of success to provide period-triggered acoustic ambiance. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Pendikatla, [0034], [0045], [0046]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akisada in view of Usami, further in view of Pendikatla as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Knafou et al. (US20080231934A1), hereinafter referred to as Knafou.
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Akisada/Usami/ Pendikatla does not explicitly teach wherein the display is configured as an E Ink display on an outer face of the vehicle.
However, Knafou does teach wherein the display is configured as an E Ink display on an outer face of the vehicle (“a film of electronic ink, which is a liquid substance that responds to electrical impulses to enable changeable non-volatile text and image displays on a flexible surface” [0015]). (“device 60 may comprise film 62 provided with a plurality of microcapsules of electronic ink which is applied to glass panel 64. … Film 62 is preferably laminated to a layer of circuitry which forms a pattern of pixels that can then be controlled by a display driver… Data bus 66 in data communication with film 62 of electronic ink transmits data associated with the desired image to be displayed by window 60 from a user control panel. The desired image to be displayed may be selected from memory or downloaded.” [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to implement the Claim 17 display of the Akisada/Usami/ Pendikatla combination as an electronic-ink display on an outer face (window/glass or body surface) as taught by Knafou with reasonable expectation of success to provide low-power, changeable exterior imagery. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Knafou, [0015], [0041]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akisada in view of Usami, further in view of Pendikatla as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tippl (US20230129216A1), hereinafter referred to as Tippl.
Regarding Claim 25:
The combination of Akisada/Usami/ Pendikatla does not explicitly teach wherein the display is configured as smart lighting below the windscreen of the vehicle.
However, Tippl does teach wherein the display is configured as smart lighting below the windscreen of the vehicle “The light strip 2 is arranged in an upper end region of the dashboard 3 between the steering wheel 1 and the windshield 4. FIG. 1 is a view of the interior from the driver's perspective. The light strip 2 extends from below an A-pillar 5 of the motor vehicle to an end point of the light strip 2, which overlaps a center console in the transverse direction.” [0019],
“A control means causes the light strip 2 to emit light in the color tone in which a light signal system in the environment of the motor vehicle also emit lights.”; “for example, retrieves information about the motor vehicle or adjusts the settings. Even when looking through a side window of the motor vehicle, the driver can notice a change in the color tone of the light strip 2.” [0020]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to optimize the combination of Akisada/Usami/ Pendikatla by locating ambient smart lighting in the instrument-panel region immediately below the windscreen as taught by Tippl with reasonable expectation of success to further enhance vehicle display options. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Tippl, [0019-0020])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights