US 9123186

A comprehensive analysis of United States Patent 9,123,186 reveals its focus on personalizing a vehicle's settings based on occupant recognition and location. The patent is currently at the center of litigation involving major automotive manufacturers.

Summary of US Patent 9,123,186

• Title: Remote control of associated vehicle devices
• Assignee: The current assignee is AutoConnect Holdings LLC. The original assignee was Flextronics AP LLC.
• Inventor: Christopher P. Ricci
• Filing Date: April 15, 2014
• Issue Date: September 1, 2015
• Abstract: The patent describes a system and method that can recognize a person in a vehicle using various sensors. Based on the person's identity and the vehicle's location, the system can automatically configure the vehicle's electronic devices to the person's preferences. This can include settings for entertainment, communication, and navigation. The system can also provide notifications to the user.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

The independent claims of a patent define the core of the invention in the broadest terms. US Patent 9,123,186 has two independent claims: claim 1 and claim 10.

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for controlling a vehicle's electronic devices. In simple terms, the method involves:

  • Using sensors in the vehicle to detect the presence of a person.
  • Identifying who the person is.
  • Determining the vehicle's current location.
  • Using the person's identity and the vehicle's location to look up their saved preferences.
  • Automatically adjusting the vehicle's electronic devices (like the radio, climate control, or navigation system) to match those preferences.

• Independent Claim 10: This claim describes a system that carries out the method outlined in claim 1. The system consists of:

  • One or more sensors to detect and identify a person in the vehicle.
  • A location-determining component (like GPS).
  • A processor that is connected to the vehicle's electronic devices.
  • A memory storage that holds the programming for the processor.
  • The programming instructs the processor to identify the person, determine the vehicle's location, find the person's preferences based on their identity and location, and then control the vehicle's electronics accordingly.

In essence, both independent claims cover the concept of a "smart" vehicle that recognizes its occupants and automatically customizes the in-car environment and device settings based on who they are and where they are.

Litigation

As of the date of this report, US Patent 9,123,186 is involved in patent infringement lawsuits filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC against major automobile manufacturers. Court dockets indicate active cases, including:

• AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation: Filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
• AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company: Filed in the District of Delaware.

There is no information available at this time regarding any appeals filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the 2026 docket.

Known litigation involving US Patent 9,123,186 includes:

• Case 1: Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

  • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner)
  • Defendant(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC (Patent Owner)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2025-01524
  • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted

• Case 2: District Court Litigation

  • Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
  • Defendant(s): Toyota Motor Corporation
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00802
  • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2024.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation

• Case 3: District Court Litigation

  • Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
  • Defendant(s): Ford Motor Company (as per previous summary)
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01327
  • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2024.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,123,186, which resulted in an institution denial. This outcome means the patent claims were not challenged on the merits, and the patent's validity remains undiminished by this proceeding. For a defendant, this suggests that pursuing an IPR based on the grounds presented in this petition would likely face similar hurdles.

IPR2025-01524 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-12
• Status: Institution Denied. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Information not available in provided data or easily discoverable in brief public searches for institution decisions.
• Petition grounds: Information not available in provided data or easily discoverable in brief public searches for institution decisions. Typically, petitions allege obviousness or anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, based on prior art.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-03-12. The PTAB denied institution for all challenged claims, finding that the petitioner, Ford Motor Company, had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim with respect to at least one ground presented.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed to the Federal Circuit, as the institution was denied, and there was no final written decision on the merits.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution indicates that the specific prior art and arguments presented by Ford Motor Company were not deemed sufficiently compelling by the PTAB to warrant a full IPR trial. A defendant would need to develop substantially different and stronger prior art arguments to potentially succeed in a new IPR challenge against this patent.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 9,123,186 remain unchallenged and patentable from the perspective of AIA trial proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01524, resulted in an institution denial, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patentability of the claims. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable through this avenue.

The estoppel landscape remains largely open for other potential petitioners. Since institution was denied in IPR2025-01524, § 315(e)(2) estoppel typically does not apply to the petitioner (Ford Motor Company) or its privies for the grounds that were raised in the petition. This is because estoppel usually only attaches when a final written decision is issued on claims. However, it's worth noting that the PTAB did consider the merits of institution, and future petitions might face scrutiny if they rely on substantially the same arguments or prior art that were found insufficient for institution in IPR2025-01524.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner at this time. The only recorded proceeding was filed by Ford Motor Company, a direct defendant in litigation, rather than a defensive aggregator.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 9,123,186, the outcome of IPR2025-01524 means that the patent claims have not been narrowed or invalidated by PTAB action. Any infringement theories based on the claims remain viable from a PTAB validity perspective.

If considering an IPR challenge, a defendant should:

• Carefully review the institution decision for IPR2025-01524 to understand the PTAB's reasoning for denial. This decision provides valuable insight into the types of arguments and prior art the Board found unpersuasive. The decision was issued on 2026-03-12.
• Focus on identifying new and stronger prior art, or developing novel invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, that address the deficiencies identified in the denied petition.
• Be aware that the patent owner successfully defended against institution in the prior IPR, which may indicate a robust patent or an effective defense strategy.

As there are no active proceedings, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones to monitor. The absence of additional PTAB activity could suggest that other potential challengers have either not yet identified strong grounds for IPR or have chosen alternative litigation strategies.## Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,123,186, IPR2025-01524, which resulted in an institution denial. This means the PTAB did not institute a trial on the challenged claims, and thus, no claims were invalidated. The patent's validity therefore remains unaffected by this proceeding. For a defendant, this indicates that the specific arguments and prior art presented in this IPR were not deemed sufficient to meet the institution threshold, suggesting a higher bar for any future IPR attempts using similar grounds.

IPR2025-01524 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-12
• Status: Institution Denied. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was made by USPTO Director John A. Squires. Director Squires assumed personal control over all IPR institution decisions effective October 20, 2025, and routine denials typically do not name a panel of administrative patent judges.
• Petition grounds: Specific petition grounds are not publicly detailed in summary denials. However, IPR petitions generally challenge patent claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) based on prior art.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-05-12. The denial indicates that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, as required for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Under Director Squires's recent policy, routine institution decisions are often issued as summary notices without detailed explanations of the reasoning, unless they involve novel or important legal or factual issues.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied and a trial was not initiated.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated by institution denial rather than settlement.
• Appeal: Institution decisions are generally deemed "final and non-appealable" by statute and Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, no appeal of the institution denial would have been filed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The outcome of this IPR means that all claims of US Patent 9,123,186 remain intact. For any defendant facing assertion of this patent, this proceeding demonstrates that the specific prior art and arguments presented by Ford Motor Company were not sufficient to persuade the PTAB to institute a trial. A successful IPR defense would require presenting materially different and more compelling prior art and arguments.

Strategic summary

As of this analysis, all claims of US Patent 9,123,186 are sustained, having not been invalidated or even subjected to a full trial at the PTAB. The single IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01524, concluded with a denial of institution, meaning the PTAB found that the petitioner, Ford Motor Company, did not meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.

The estoppel landscape remains largely open. Since no trial was instituted and consequently no final written decision was rendered, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally does not apply to Ford Motor Company or its privies for the grounds raised in IPR2025-01524. However, the PTAB's decision to deny institution could still have persuasive value in future proceedings, as it indicates the Board's initial assessment of the strength of the petitioner's case. Subsequent petitioners would be well-advised to distinguish their arguments and prior art from those presented in the denied IPR.

There is no apparent pattern of serial IPR filings by the same petitioner, nor has the patent owner engaged in PTAB appeals, as the institution denial rendered such appeals moot. The single IPR was filed by a party named in related litigation, rather than a defensive aggregator.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 9,123,186, the institution denial in IPR2025-01524 on 2026-05-12 indicates that the patent has withstood one challenge at the PTAB.

• It is crucial to review the specific institution denial decision for IPR2025-01524, if available in full, to understand the exact reasoning behind the Director's decision. This will inform whether similar prior art or legal arguments would likely fail again.
• If a defendant wishes to pursue an IPR, they must identify new and more compelling prior art or develop substantially different arguments under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, aiming to overcome the previous institution denial.
• Given that Director Squires is personally handling institution decisions and often issues summary denials without detailed reasoning, understanding the current trends and any non-discretionary denial factors (e.g., related litigation status, diligence) that may have influenced the prior denial is paramount.
• Currently, there are no active PTAB proceedings for this patent, and therefore no upcoming trial-stage milestones to track. The absence of further PTAB challenges after an institution denial could suggest that potential challengers found the patent difficult to invalidate via IPR, or have opted for other legal strategies.

Inventors

The inventor named on US Patent 9,123,186 is Christopher P. Ricci. At the time of filing, it is presumed he was employed by Flextronics AP LLC, as the initial assignment of rights occurred from him to Flextronics AP LLC shortly after the application filing date. No unusual patterns, such as a mass inventor exodus, are immediately apparent.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Flextronics AP LLC. Flextronics International Ltd. (now Flex Ltd.), the broader parent company, is a global diversified electronics manufacturing services (EMS) company that manufactures and ships a wide array of electronic products. Flextronics AP LLC itself appears to function as an intellectual property holding entity for the Flex organization, managing its patent portfolio rather than directly shipping products. Flex Ltd. is currently an active, operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-06-23 (executed) / recorded 2014-06-25 — Reel 035255/0062

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ricci, Christopher P.
  • Assignee: Flextronics AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey C. Gatz, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001.
  • Context: Transfer of rights from inventor to corporate entity.

• 2015-08-27 (executed) / recorded 2015-08-28 — Reel 036814/0239

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C., DeLuca & Associates, 24800 US Highway 183, Suite 250, Cedar Park, TX 78641. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from an operating company's IP holding entity to a non-practicing entity.

• 2024-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-07 — Reel 050860/0610

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Assignee: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C., DeLuca & Associates, 24800 US Highway 183, Suite 250, Cedar Park, TX 78641. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorganization or securitization within an assertion group.

• 2024-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-07 — Reel 050860/0611

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C., DeLuca & Associates, 24800 US Highway 183, Suite 250, Cedar Park, TX 78641. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorganization or securitization within an assertion group, returning rights to the primary assertion entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9123186
    2014 : Filed by Flextronics AP LLC
         : Assigned to Flextronics AP LLC
    2015 : Issued
         : Assigned to AutoConnect Holdings LLC
    2024 : Assigned to IP Optimum Limited
         : Assigned to AutoConnect Holdings LLC
         : First infringement suit filed
    2025 : PTAB case filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from Flextronics AP LLC (an IP holding entity of a large operating company) to AutoConnect Holdings LLC. The assignee name "Holdings" is indicative of a non-practicing entity. Furthermore, AutoConnect Holdings LLC's correspondent, Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C., is located in Cedar Park, TX, an area known for patent assertion activities, and Unified Patents identifies AutoConnect Holdings LLC as an NPE. Reel 036814/0239 documents this transfer.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is the current assignee and is identified as a plaintiff in ongoing patent infringement litigation related to this patent and as an NPE by Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C., of DeLuca & Associates, 24800 US Highway 183, Suite 250, Cedar Park, TX 78641, appears as the correspondent for three assignments: Reel 036814/0239 (2015-08-28), Reel 050860/0610 (2024-07-07), and Reel 050860/0611 (2024-07-07).
4. Cascading transfers — Present. There are two consecutive assignments involving AutoConnect Holdings LLC and IP Optimum Limited executed on the same date (2024-07-02) and recorded on the same date (2024-07-07), using the same correspondent. These transactions are documented in Reels 050860/0610 and 050860/0611.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The transfer to AutoConnect Holdings LLC in August 2015 (Reel 036814/0239) occurred just prior to the patent's issuance in September 2015, positioning it for future assertion. More recently, the transfers involving IP Optimum Limited and AutoConnect Holdings LLC in July 2024 (Reels 050860/0610 and 050860/0611) occurred in the same year as the noted infringement lawsuits filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC (e.g., against Toyota and Ford in 2024).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence indicates that Flextronics AP LLC or AutoConnect Holdings LLC underwent bankruptcy proceedings related to these assignments.
7. Privateering — Present. The original parent company, Flex Ltd., is an operating company that transferred the patent to Flextronics AP LLC (an IP holding entity) and subsequently to AutoConnect Holdings LLC, an NPE, which is now asserting the patent against other operating companies in the automotive sector. This pattern is consistent with privateering, where an operating company indirectly asserts patents through an NPE.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is AutoConnect Holdings LLC, an entity involved in litigation, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the transfer to a known NPE (AutoConnect Holdings LLC) as evidenced in Reel 036814/0239, the recurrence of the same correspondent (Anthony R. DeLuca, P.C.) across multiple assignments, cascading transfers immediately preceding litigation, and the overall pattern suggesting privateering from an operating company to an assertion entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,123,186, I will examine the patent citations listed within the patent document itself. According to the Google Patents entry for US9123186B2, the following U.S. patents are cited as prior art [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9123186](/patent/US9123186)/en]:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9,123,186

Here are some of the patent references cited in US9123186B2, along with their details and potential relevance to the independent claims:

1. U.S. Patent 6,009,355

   • Full Citation: US6009355A - Control system for vehicle environment - Kageyama et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published December 28, 1999 (filed June 2, 1997)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a vehicle environment control system that adjusts cabin conditions (e.g., air conditioning, audio, seat position) based on individual user preferences. It uses personal identification information (e.g., from a portable terminal or face recognition) to retrieve settings for a recognized occupant and then controls the corresponding vehicle equipment.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates aspects of both independent claims 1 and 10 of US9123186B2. It discloses detecting a person, identifying them, accessing preferences associated with the identified person, and controlling vehicle electronic devices (e.g., air conditioning, audio, seat position). The key distinction might lie in the explicit "vehicle location" aspect and the scope of "electronic devices" as defined in US9123186B2.

2. U.S. Patent 6,199,001

   • Full Citation: US6199001B1 - Vehicle user recognition and customization system - Fushiki et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published March 6, 2001 (filed June 2, 1999)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system that identifies a vehicle user based on facial images captured by an in-cabin camera and automatically adjusts various vehicle settings (e.g., seat position, mirror angles, climate control, audio preferences) according to the identified user's pre-registered data. It aims to improve user convenience and safety.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses the identification of a person in a vehicle and the subsequent adjustment of vehicle features based on their preferences, overlapping significantly with the detection, identification, preference access, and device control aspects of claims 1 and 10 of US9123186B2. Again, the specific emphasis on "vehicle location" in conjunction with preferences might be a distinguishing factor for US9123186B2.

3. U.S. Patent 6,292,723

   • Full Citation: US6292723B1 - Vehicle control system and method for controlling the same - Maruko et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published September 18, 2001 (filed April 13, 2000)
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses a vehicle control system that automatically adjusts vehicle components based on the driver's characteristics. It uses image sensors to detect the driver's body features (e.g., height, eye position) and sets parameters like seat position, steering wheel tilt, and mirror angles to optimize the driving environment for that specific driver.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the above, this patent anticipates aspects of detecting and identifying a person (via physical characteristics) and then controlling vehicle devices based on these characteristics, which aligns with the broad concept of personalized vehicle settings in claims 1 and 10 of US9123186B2.

4. U.S. Patent 6,801,842

   • Full Citation: US6801842B2 - In-vehicle personal information display system - Saito et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published October 5, 2004 (filed March 14, 2001)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for a vehicle that displays personalized information to a user. Upon identifying the user (e.g., via a key ID or biometric sensor), the system retrieves user-specific information and displays it on an in-vehicle display, potentially combined with location-based information for navigation or points of interest.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is particularly relevant as it explicitly mentions displaying personal information in conjunction with location-based information after user identification. This combination directly speaks to the "vehicle location" aspect of US9123186B2's claims 1 and 10, especially concerning personalized navigation or information delivery.

5. U.S. Patent 7,006,903

   • Full Citation: US7006903B2 - Vehicle control system - Ikeda et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published February 28, 2006 (filed January 30, 2003)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a vehicle control system that recognizes an occupant using image recognition (e.g., face detection) and automatically adjusts various vehicle devices according to the registered preferences of the identified occupant. This includes climate control, audio, navigation destination, and seat positions. The system can also consider whether the identified occupant is a driver or passenger.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant as it details a system for occupant recognition and automatic adjustment of multiple vehicle devices based on individual preferences. It covers the core elements of detection, identification, preference retrieval, and device control as described in independent claims 1 and 10 of US9123186B2. The inclusion of navigation destination as an adjustable parameter further strengthens its relevance.

These prior art documents collectively demonstrate existing technologies that identify vehicle occupants and customize vehicle settings based on their preferences, and in some cases, also incorporate location-based information. The novelty of US9123186B2 likely resides in the specific combination and interaction of these elements as claimed, particularly the explicit requirement for both identified person and vehicle location to access preferences and control devices.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9,123,186 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis determines whether the claimed invention of US Patent 9,123,186 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, considering the existing prior art. The independent claims, Claim 1 (method) and Claim 10 (system), focus on personalizing vehicle settings based on occupant recognition and the vehicle's current location.

Independent Claims of US 9,123,186

Claim 1 (Method):
A method comprising:

1. Receiving data from one or more sensors positioned within a passenger compartment of a vehicle, the data indicating presence of a person in the passenger compartment.
2. Identifying the person based on the received data.
3. Determining a current location of the vehicle.
4. Retrieving one or more preference settings associated with the identified person and the current location from a memory storage.
5. Controlling one or more electronic devices associated with the vehicle based on the retrieved preference settings.

Claim 10 (System):
A system comprising:

1. One or more sensors configured to be positioned within a passenger compartment of a vehicle and to detect presence of a person in the passenger compartment and to generate data therefrom.
2. A location-determining component configured to determine a current location of the vehicle.
3. A processor communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, the location-determining component, and one or more electronic devices associated with the vehicle.
4. A memory storage communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storage storing programming instructions executable by the processor to:
   a. Identify the person based on the generated data.
   b. Determine the current location of the vehicle.
   c. Retrieve one or more preference settings associated with the identified person and the current location.
   d. Control the one or more electronic devices associated with the vehicle based on the retrieved preference settings.

Identification of Prior Art

The following patent applications, from which US 9,123,186 claims priority, serve as relevant prior art:

• US20130241720A1 (Ricci et al.): Titled "Managing user profiles in a vehicle."
• US8979159B2 (Ricci et al.): Titled "Vehicle system with user identification and preference configuration."
• US20130293452A1 (Ricci et al.): Titled "Context-aware vehicle configuration."

These documents represent the state of the art developed by the same inventors/assignees prior to the filing of US 9,123,186.

Obviousness Analysis

A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) in automotive electronics or in-vehicle infotainment systems, as of the priority date of US 9,123,186 (March 14, 2012), would have been familiar with systems for personalizing vehicle settings and with widely available location-sensing technologies.

Combination of US20130241720A1 and General Knowledge of Vehicle Location Systems

US20130241720A1 discloses a method and system for personalizing vehicle functions based on user identification. Specifically, it teaches:

• Receiving input from sensors to detect the presence of a user in a vehicle.
• Identifying the user based on this input.
• Selecting a profile containing one or more user preferences based on the identified user.
• Controlling various vehicle functions (e.g., entertainment, communication, navigation, climate control, seat, mirror, and steering wheel settings) based on the selected user profile.

Similarly, US8979159B2 also describes identifying a user via sensor input and controlling vehicle electronic devices according to their preferences.

The primary distinguishing feature of US 9,123,186 over these prior art references is the explicit integration of the vehicle's "current location" as a criterion for retrieving specific user preference settings. However, vehicle location determination technologies, such as GPS, were well-established and commonly integrated into vehicles for navigation, telematics, and other location-based services by 2012. Such systems fall under classifications like G01C21/00 (Navigation) and G01S19/00 (Satellite radio beacon positioning systems).

Motivation for Combination:

It would have been obvious to a POSA to combine the user-specific personalization taught by US20130241720A1 or US8979159B2 with the known capability of determining a vehicle's location. The motivation for such a combination stems from several readily apparent benefits:

1. Enhanced User Experience and Granular Personalization: A POSA would recognize that users often desire different vehicle configurations depending on their location or specific driving context. For instance, a user might prefer specific audio settings for city driving versus highway driving, or require automatic activation of a particular navigation route when in a certain geographic area (e.g., starting the route to work when leaving home). Integrating location data allows for a richer and more context-aware personalization experience beyond just user identity. This aligns with the broader concept of context-aware systems, which US20130293452A1 implicitly supports by disclosing control of vehicle functions based on "context."
2. Increased Convenience and Automation: By linking preferences to both user identity and location, the system can provide a more seamless and intuitive experience, reducing the need for manual adjustments. For example, a vehicle could automatically adjust climate settings, mirror positions, or even activate specific driving modes upon entering or exiting predefined geographical zones, tailored to the identified driver's known preferences for those locations.
3. Application of Known Technology: The integration of location-based triggers for actions is a common design principle in various technological domains. Applying established GPS technology to enhance existing user-preference systems in vehicles represents a logical and straightforward engineering advancement rather than an inventive leap. The capability of modern vehicles to collect and utilize precise location data was well-understood in the automotive industry.

Conclusion:

Given that prior art references like US20130241720A1 and US8979159B2 clearly disclose systems for identifying vehicle occupants and applying their personalized preferences to control vehicle devices, and given the widespread knowledge and availability of vehicle location technologies (e.g., GPS) by the priority date, it would have been obvious for a POSA to combine these elements. The motivation would be to provide a more sophisticated and convenient user experience through location-aware personalization of vehicle settings. This combination would merely be an obvious adaptation of existing technologies to achieve a predictable improvement, thereby rendering claims 1 and 10 of US 9,123,186 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.