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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on April 27, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claim 2 has been amended. Claims 6-8 were added. No claims were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to a computer-readable storage medium storing a driving assistance program which executes a moving control to autonomously control a moving of a vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. Applicant's specification is silent to the scope of the computer readable storage medium and does not exclude transitory propagating signals per se; therefore, in view of the state of the art, the claims must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lenke, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11577742) in view of Kale, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11498388).
Regarding claim 1, Lenke, et al. teaches: A driving assistance apparatus, comprising: a memory that stores a program; (Col. 15, lines 27-37: "Computer-executable instructions implementing the techniques described herein (when implemented as one or more functional facilities or in any other manner) may, in some embodiments, be encoded on one or more computer-readable media such as storage (196) to provide functionality to the media. Computer-readable media include [stores a program] […] a persistent or non-persistent solid-state memory (e.g., Flash memory, Magnetic RAM, etc.) [memory]")
and a processor configured to execute the program, so as to: (Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 43-48: "…FIG. 2 is an embodiment of a vehicle control system (190) which can include any combination of hardware and software configured to control the vehicle. This vehicle control system (190) can include a vehicle processing core (198) with one or more processors (192) [processor]")
execute a moving control to autonomously control a moving of a vehicle, (Col. 5, lines 33-37: "…information gathered by voice assistant (160) during interaction with the occupant may be provided to autonomous vehicle operation manager (120) for use in controlling operation of the vehicle, such as to complete an action or task specified via voice input [execute moving control to autonomously control moving of vehicle].")
(i) inform a driver of the vehicle of contents of a voice operation process planned to be executed for the moving control in accordance with utterance contents of the driver acquired by voice recognition and request the driver to perform an approval operation to approve the informed contents; (Col. 9, lines 15-20: "The voice control system (100) is then leveraged to use voice to inform the driver that autonomous vehicle operation is available (step (350)), and to provide information on one or more of the potential routes along which autonomous operation may be used [inform driver of vehicle of contents of voice operation process to be executed for moving control via voice recognition], so that the driver may select a particular one that best suits his/her needs [request driver to perform approval operation to approve informed contents].")
and (ii) execute the voice operation process when the approval operation is performed (Col. 9, lines 25-28: "The vehicle control system (190) can receive a voice command from the driver to transfer to autonomous operation along one of the potential routes (step (360)) and then switch the vehicle into autonomous mode (step (370)) [execute voice operation process after approval operation is performed].").
Lenke, et al. does not teach wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation.
In a similar field of endeavor (intelligent control of autonomous vehicle controls), Kale, et al. teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation (Col. 8, lines 18-28: "…the sensor data (121) collected via during the “normal” service time period of the vehicle (111) or a component can be classified via an unsupervised learning (175) into a number of clusters. Different clusters may correspond to different types of normal conditions [...] different mood of driving habits of the driver). When a subsequent sensor data (121) is classified outside of the “normal” clusters, an anomaly is detected [computer in autonomous vehicle learning about state of driver and abnormal behavior]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Col. 28, lines 21-25: "…some adjustment may have a potential safety concern; and other adjustments may not have a safety concern [...] When the adjustment does not have safety concern, the prompting for user approval can be skipped [option to determine whether driver is in predetermined first state which needs approval]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lenke, et al. to include the teaching of Kale, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing voice control to an autonomous vehicle via the state of the driver (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 2, Lenke, et al. and Kale, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein when the processor is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether the state of the driver is the predetermined first state, the processor is configured to: (i) request the driver to perform the approval operation when the state of the driver is the predetermined first state and execute the voice operation process when the approval operation is performed; (Kale, et al. Col. 5, lines 29-33: "…the machine learning module of the data storage device (101) can be used to calibrate the ANN (125) to account for the typical/daily environment in which the vehicle (111) is being operated and/or driving preferences/habits of the driver(s) of the vehicle (111) [ANN within computer system used to determine driver state]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 5, lines 39-44: "Such patterns can vary for different vehicles (e.g., (111)) based on their routine operating environments and the driving habits/characteristics of their drivers. The training allows the ANN (125) to detect deviations from the recognized normal patterns and report anomaly for maintenance predictions [ANN within computer system used to determine deviations in driver state]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 48-57: "After the user confirmation of the adjustments, the computer system (131) is configured to effectuate the adjustments. For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure based on state of driver from computer system].")
and (ii) not request the driver to perform the approval operation and execute the voice operation process without the approval operation, when the state of the driver is not the predetermined first state (Kale, et al. Col. 5, lines 29-33: "…the machine learning module of the data storage device (101) can be used to calibrate the ANN (125) to account for the typical/daily environment in which the vehicle (111) is being operated and/or driving preferences/habits of the driver(s) of the vehicle (111) [ANN within computer system used to determine driver state]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 5, lines 39-44: "Such patterns can vary for different vehicles (e.g., (111)) based on their routine operating environments and the driving habits/characteristics of their drivers. The training allows the ANN (125) to detect deviations from the recognized normal patterns and report anomaly for maintenance predictions [ANN within computer system used to determine deviations in driver state]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 28, lines 21-25: "In general, some adjustment may have a potential safety concern; and other adjustments may not have a safety concern [...] When the adjustment does not have safety concern, the prompting for user approval can be skipped [option to determine whether driver is in predetermined first state which needs approval; can execute without voice approval - procedure based on state of driver from computer system]").
Regarding claim 4, Lenke, et al. teaches: A driving assistance method of executing a moving control to autonomously control a moving of a vehicle, the driving assistance method comprising steps of: (i) informing a driver of the vehicle of contents of a voice operation process planned to be executed for the moving control in accordance with utterance contents of the driver acquired by voice recognition and requesting the driver to perform an approval operation to approve the informed contents; (Step (350), Fig. 4, Col. 9, lines 15-20: "The voice control system (100) is then leveraged to use voice to inform the driver that autonomous vehicle operation is available (step (350)), and to provide information on one or more of the potential routes along which autonomous operation may be used [inform driver of vehicle of contents of voice operation process to be executed for moving control via voice recognition], so that the driver may select a particular one that best suits his/her needs [request driver to perform approval operation to approve informed contents].")
and (ii) executing the voice operation process when the approval operation is performed (Steps (360-370), Fig. 4, Col. 9, lines 25-28: "The vehicle control system (190) can receive a voice command from the driver to transfer to autonomous operation along one of the potential routes (step (360)) and then switch the vehicle into autonomous mode (step (370)) [execute voice operation process after approval operation is performed].").
Lenke, et al. does not teach wherein the driving assistance method comprises a step of determining whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation.
In a similar field of endeavor (intelligent control of autonomous vehicle controls), Kale, et al. teaches: wherein the driving assistance method comprises a step of determining whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation (Col. 8, lines 18-28: "…the sensor data (121) collected via during the “normal” service time period of the vehicle (111) or a component can be classified via an unsupervised learning (175) into a number of clusters. Different clusters may correspond to different types of normal conditions [...] different mood of driving habits of the driver). When a subsequent sensor data (121) is classified outside of the “normal” clusters, an anomaly is detected [computer in autonomous vehicle learning about state of driver and abnormal behavior]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Col. 28, lines 21-25: "…some adjustment may have a potential safety concern; and other adjustments may not have a safety concern [...] When the adjustment does not have safety concern, the prompting for user approval can be skipped [option to determine whether driver is in predetermined first state which needs approval]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lenke, et al. to include the teaching of Kale, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing voice control to an autonomous vehicle via the state of the driver (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 5, Lenke, et al. teaches: A computer-readable storage medium storing a driving assistance program which executes a moving control to autonomously control a moving of a vehicle, the driving assistance program being configured to: (Col. 5, lines 33-37: "…information gathered by voice assistant (160) during interaction with the occupant may be provided to autonomous vehicle operation manager (120) for use in controlling operation of the vehicle, such as to complete an action or task specified via voice input [execute moving control to autonomously control moving of vehicle]." ; Col. 5, lines 43-56: "…This vehicle control system (190) can include a vehicle processing core (198) with one or more processors (192), one or more network adapters (194) and storage (196). The one or more processors can be used to execute instructions or software [driving assistance program] that perform aspects of the methods and systems described herein. In some instances, these executable instructions or software can be stored in storage (196) [computer-readable storage medium]. For example, the voice control system (100) can be executed and controlled by the vehicle processing core (198) using sensor (112) input and input from the vehicle operations manager (120) [computer readable storage medium linked to autonomous control of vehicle].")
(i) inform a driver of the vehicle of contents of a voice operation process planned to be executed for the moving control in accordance with utterance contents of the driver acquired by voice recognition and request the driver to perform an approval operation to approve the informed contents; (Col. 9, lines 15-20: "The voice control system (100) is then leveraged to use voice to inform the driver that autonomous vehicle operation is available (step (350)), and to provide information on one or more of the potential routes along which autonomous operation may be used [inform driver of vehicle of contents of voice operation process to be executed for moving control via voice recognition], so that the driver may select a particular one that best suits his/her needs [request driver to perform approval operation to approve informed contents].")
and (ii) execute the voice operation process when the approval operation is performed (Col. 9, lines 25-28: "The vehicle control system (190) can receive a voice command from the driver to transfer to autonomous operation along one of the potential routes (step (360)) and then switch the vehicle into autonomous mode (step (370)) [execute voice operation process after approval operation is performed].").
Lenke, et al. does not teach wherein the driving assistance program is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation.
In a similar field of endeavor (intelligent control of autonomous vehicle controls), Kale, et al. teaches: wherein the driving assistance program is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation (Col. 8, lines 18-28: "…the sensor data (121) collected via during the “normal” service time period of the vehicle (111) or a component can be classified via an unsupervised learning (175) into a number of clusters. Different clusters may correspond to different types of normal conditions [...] different mood of driving habits of the driver). When a subsequent sensor data (121) is classified outside of the “normal” clusters, an anomaly is detected [computer in autonomous vehicle learning about state of driver and abnormal behavior]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Col. 28, lines 21-25: "…some adjustment may have a potential safety concern; and other adjustments may not have a safety concern [...] When the adjustment does not have safety concern, the prompting for user approval can be skipped [option to determine whether driver is in predetermined first state which needs approval]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lenke, et al. to include the teaching of Kale, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing voice control to an autonomous vehicle via the state of the driver (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 6, Lenke, et al. and Kale, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the voice operation process is a process to change a motion of the vehicle (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 7, lines 10-14: "When the vehicle (111) is configured with an ADAS (105), the outputs of the ADAS (105) can be used to control (e.g., (141), (143), (145)) the acceleration of the vehicle (111), the speed of the vehicle (111), and/or the direction of the vehicle (111), during autonomous driving [voice operation process through ADAS component of computer system can be used to influence motion of vehicle].").
Regarding claim 7, Lenke, et al. and Kale, et al. remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The driving assistance method as set forth in claim 4, wherein the voice operation process is a process to change a motion of the vehicle (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 7, lines 10-14: "When the vehicle (111) is configured with an ADAS (105), the outputs of the ADAS (105) can be used to control (e.g., (141), (143), (145)) the acceleration of the vehicle (111), the speed of the vehicle (111), and/or the direction of the vehicle (111), during autonomous driving [voice operation process through ADAS component of computer system can be used to influence motion of vehicle].").
Regarding claim 8, Lenke, et al. and Kale, et al. remain as applied to claim 5, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computer-readable storage medium as set forth in claim 5, wherein the voice operation process is a process to change a motion of the vehicle (Kale, et al. Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…For example, the computer system (131) can announce the proposed adjustments via synthesized speech and detect the user confirmation via voice within a predetermined time period for the user's response to the announcement. The user may confirm or reject the proposed adjustment via a voice command, or reject the proposed adjustment by not responding within the predetermined time period [can get voice approval from driver - procedure]." ; Kale, et al. Col. 7, lines 10-14: "When the vehicle (111) is configured with an ADAS (105), the outputs of the ADAS (105) can be used to control (e.g., (141), (143), (145)) the acceleration of the vehicle (111), the speed of the vehicle (111), and/or the direction of the vehicle (111), during autonomous driving [voice operation process through ADAS component of computer system can be used to influence motion of vehicle].").
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that claim 1 was patentable over Lenke, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11577742) in view of Kale, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11498388) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation”. The examiner disagrees. As part of the initial process of providing advanced driver assistance for the vehicle, “…the machine learning module of the data storage device (101) can be used to calibrate the ANN (125) to account for the typical/daily environment in which the vehicle (111) is being operated and/or driving preferences/habits of the driver(s) of the vehicle (111).” (Col. 5, lines 29-33). As a result, analysis can be conducted based on the driver state in which “…Such patterns can vary for different vehicles (e.g., 111) based on their routine operating environments and the driving habits/characteristics of their drivers. The training allows the ANN (125) to detect deviations from the recognized normal patterns and report anomaly for maintenance predictions” (Col. 5, lines 39-44). Therefore, the use of the ANN in conjunction with the computer system (131) of the vehicle enables the vehicle to identify anomalies in the mood of the driver (Col. 8, lines 18-28), determine whether the adjustment needs user approval (Col. 28, lines 21-25), and performs an adjustment approval operation via a driver’s voice command (Col. 26, lines 48-57). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Kale, et al. with Lenke, et al. because Lenke, et al. teaches a driving assistance apparatus that informs a driver of a vehicle with respect to a voice operation process in conjunction with control of a vehicle using voice recognition and approval from the driver (Col. 9, lines 15-20) and executes the subsequent approved voice operation (Col. 9, lines 25-28).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Lenke, et al. and Kale, et al. reads on the claim limitation “wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to request the driver to perform the approval operation, based on whether a state of the driver is a predetermined first state which needs the approval operation”, as stated in claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goto, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190126942) teaches a vehicle assistance system which assists the execution of a driver action during automatic driving as a function of a given voice operation, response, and confirmation by a driver.
Oba, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240280997) teaches a remote steering system which uses acquired information from various driver inputs (including voice inputs) in order to determine when remote steering should be performed on the vehicle.
Oh, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10598504) teaches a vehicle control device containing a voice input unit which analyzes the state of the driver and controls the vehicle in autonomous mode during a circumstance in which the health status of the driver is problematic.
Sekine (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190047586) teaches a vehicle control technique for controlling an automated driving car via voice control with respect to a predetermined distance.
6. Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights