PTAB

IPR2026-00172

Ford Motor Co v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Prioritizing Control of an Infotainment System
  • Brief Description: The ’297 patent describes systems and methods for customizing vehicle infotainment controls based on user profiles. The invention prioritizes control access among multiple users by comparing their assigned access priorities and allowing or preventing adjustments accordingly.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zancho - Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 are obvious over Zancho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zancho (Application # 2007/0143482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Zancho discloses all limitations of the independent claims (1, 9, and 15). Zancho teaches a vehicle controller that handles conflicting preferences from multiple users for vehicle systems, including infotainment. Its "preference handler" module identifies users via associated devices, accesses their stored "preference profiles" (the claimed "user profile"), and uses "preference arbitration schemes" to resolve conflicts. This arbitration, based on context, user roles (e.g., owner), and preference categories (e.g., "non-compromiseable" preferences that act as a veto), directly corresponds to the claimed steps of determining and comparing access priorities between a first and second user, and allowing or preventing an adjustment based on which user has a higher priority. Petitioner further mapped Zancho's disclosures of detecting users via device proximity and specific preference types (audio settings, content genres) to the various dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zancho and Sundaram - Claims 3 and 11 are obvious over Zancho in view of Sundaram.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zancho (Application # 2007/0143482) and Sundaram (Application # 2011/0106375).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims 3 and 11, which add the limitation of identifying a user via biometric data, such as receiving identifying characteristics from an image sensor. While Zancho primarily identifies users via their personal devices, Sundaram explicitly discloses an in-vehicle system that identifies users "through visual recognition using a camera, voice recognition, finger print identification etc." to enable different user profiles. Sundaram teaches capturing a user's image, matching it to unique user characteristics stored in memory, and verifying the user's identity.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Sundaram’s biometric identification with Zancho’s preference arbitration system to improve the accuracy of user identification. This addresses a known problem in Zancho where device-based identification could fail (e.g., if a passenger uses the driver's phone), providing a more reliable way to apply user-specific preferences and priorities. The combination applies a known technique (biometric identification) to a known system (preference arbitration) to yield predictable improvements.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as modifying Zancho's system to include known sensors (like cameras from Sundaram) and linking the verified user identity to the existing preference profiles would be a straightforward integration of complementary technologies.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Demeniuk and Zancho - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Demeniuk in view of Zancho.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Demeniuk (Patent 9,224,289) and Zancho (Application # 2007/0143482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Demeniuk discloses a vehicle computing system that prioritizes and limits control of infotainment features based on a user's identity as a driver or non-driver. It determines priority by detecting the location of a user's connected nomadic device (e.g., using Bluetooth or seat sensors) and can prevent a passenger from overriding a driver's playlist selection. This teaches the core concept of determining and comparing access priorities between users to allow or prevent infotainment adjustments. Zancho is cited to supply the explicit teaching of storing extensive user preferences (audio, media, etc.) in structured "preference profiles" and using a "preference handler" to arbitrate them.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Zancho's robust user profile and preference management system with Demeniuk's location-based priority framework. This would improve Demeniuk's system by allowing for more granular, pre-configured preferences to be automatically applied based on priority, rather than relying solely on simple driver/passenger roles. It provides a more refined and persistent method for managing control conflicts between multiple vehicle occupants.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would have been straightforward, as both references operate in the same field of managing user control of vehicle infotainment. A POSITA would have understood how to modify Demeniuk's controller to store and access the user preference data taught by Zancho to enhance its existing priority logic.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv by noting that the co-pending district court litigation is in its early pleadings stage. The trial is not scheduled until October 2027, which is long after the projected final written decision in this IPR proceeding.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’297 patent as unpatentable.