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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are canceled. Claims 26-29 are added as new claims. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-18, and 21-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong Two that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically by requiring capture of a diagnostic snapshot of vehicle operation (including controller/log/DTC information) responsive to capture of in-vehicle speech, storage of voice data and diagnostic snapshot data in respective databases with a defined linkage between corresponding records, and presentation, via the portal application, of a per-record link that provides access to the corresponding diagnostic snapshot vehicle data arguing it specifies how the system must persist and access correlated data records. Examiner disagrees. Specifying how a system must persist and access correlated data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the capturing the diagnostic data as applicant describes directly correspond to the observation and evaluation of data (mental processes). The use of a database to store data merely amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a storage including a vehicle database and IVVF database, a cloud server, a vehicle, a portal application presenting a user interface, and a client device. The additional elements of a storage including a vehicle database and IVVF database, a cloud server, a portal application presenting a user interface, and a client device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer. The additional element of the vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (in-vehicle customer feedback). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that the Office Action does not identify any evidence establishing that this specific ordered combination, including storing voice data with links to corresponding diagnostic snapshot records and presenting per-record links to access the corresponding diagnostic data, is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. The Office Action did not need to identify any evidence establishing their features or additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional. The Office Action indicates has that the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Nothing was mentioned regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Applicant’s argument is irrelevant to the analysis presented in the Office Action.
Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action has not established a prima facie case of a rejection under § 101 for the dependent claims is unfounded. The Office Action addresses the dependent claims and notes that the claims recite limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea already analyzed in the dependent claims (e.g. by further limiting, etc.), and the additional elements were also already analyzed in the independent claims. There’s no need to recite the same additional elements repeatedly when they have already been fully analyzed, and they’re performing the same general computing functions (e.g., processing data, storing data, etc.). For instance, in claim 4 the cloud server uses a semantic analyzer to identify sentiment. The cloud server was already analyzed as additional elements and performing the claim limitations drawn towards the identified judicial exceptions, and amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. There’s also nothing in the claims or specification identifying the semantic analyzer as an additional hardware component, but merely mentions it in purely functional terms. This current Office Action identifies the claim separately to appease the applicant, however the outcome is still the same: ineligible under §101. Further, claim 6 merely recites limitations that are further directed to the judicial exception that has already been analyzed, as already stated.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the hierarchy of categories". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, the hierarchy of categories is interpreted as a list of vehicle data associated with vehicle functions from the feedback.
Dependent claims 21-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on rejected claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-18, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 26 recite a system (i.e. machine), claims 9, 12-17, and 27-29 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 18 and 21-25 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1, 4-9, 12-18, and 21-29 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations of: a [storage] comprising maintained customer feedback; and a [cloud server] configured to: receive customer feedback from a [vehicle], the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the [vehicle], the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the [vehicle], wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data, bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage, store the vehicle data in a [vehicle data database of the storage] and store the voice data in an [IVVF database of the storage], wherein the voice data in the [IVVF database] is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data, and present a [portal application] to a [client device], the [portal application] presenting a [user interface] to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the [portal application presents], for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the [vehicle data database] corresponding to the voice data. The claims are drawn towards a vehicle providing a feature that allows a customer to give real-time voice feedback, and recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving customer feedback, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded from an occupant of [the vehicle]; binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of [the storage], and presenting [a portal application] to [a client device], [the portal application] presenting [a user interface] to allow [the client device] to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing snapshot of information descriptive of the vehicle including diagnostic test code data, software logs, controller information, binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, adding the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of [the storage], and presenting [a portal application] to [a client device], [the portal application] presenting [a user interface] to allow [the client device] to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Ste 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a storage including a vehicle database and IVVF database, a cloud server, a vehicle, a portal application presenting a user interface, and a client device. The additional elements of a storage including a vehicle database and IVVF database, a cloud server, a portal application presenting a user interface, and a client device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer. The additional element of the vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (in-vehicle customer feedback). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 18 recites the limitations: receive customer feedback from [a vehicle], the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by [the vehicle] from an occupant of [the vehicle], the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of [the vehicle], wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data, perform speech-to-text processing on the customer feedback to generate textual content of the speech in the corresponding voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories at least according to vehicle function as indicated by the textual content of the speech in the corresponding voice data, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of [the storage], store the vehicle data in [a vehicle data database of the storage] and store the voice data in [an IVVF database of the storage], wherein the voice data in the [IVVF database] is stored with links to the vehicle data in the [vehicle data database] corresponding to the voice data, and present [a portal application] to [a client device], [the portal application] presenting [a user interface] to allow [the client device] to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, including to a filter at least by a selected one vehicle function, function, wherein the [portal application] presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the [vehicle data database] corresponding to the voice data. The claims are drawn towards a vehicle providing a feature that allows a customer to give real-time voice feedback, and recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving customer feedback, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded from an occupant of [the vehicle]; binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of [the storage], and presenting [a portal application] to [a client device], [the portal application] presenting [a user interface] to allow [the client device] to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing performing speech-to-text processing on the customer feedback to generate textual content of the speech in the corresponding voice data ,binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, adding the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of [the storage], and presenting [a portal application] to [a client device], [the portal application] presenting [a user interface] to allow [the client device] to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories including to a filter at least by a selected one vehicle function. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Ste 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a storage including a vehicle data database and IVVF database, a cloud server, a vehicle, a portal application presenting a user interface, a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more computing devices, and a client device. The additional elements of a storage including a vehicle data database and IVV database, a cloud server, a portal application presenting a user interface, a non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more computing devices, and a client device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer. The additional element of the vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (in-vehicle customer feedback). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 12, and 21 recites the limitations that the [cloud server] is further configured to: utilize a semantic analyzer to identify sentiment in the speech; augment the voice data to include the identified sentiment; and present the sentiment in the[ portal application] along with the maintained customer feedback. The claims are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional element of the client server utilizing a semantic analyzer to identify sentiment in the speech, and a portal application to present the sentiment. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 reciters the limitations of presenting, via a [human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle], a prompt for receiving the voice data for the received customer feedback; receiving the voice data from the occupant of the vehicle; capturing the snapshot of information descriptive of the operation of [the vehicle]; and sending, from the vehicle to the [cloud server], the received customer feedback including the voice data and the snapshot. The claim is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a [human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle], the vehicle, and the cloud server. The additional elements of the HMI and cloud server amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. The vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible
Dependent claims 5-8, 13-16, and 22-29 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 5-8, 13-16, and 22-29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 9, 12-18, and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannappa (2018/0082312) in view of Tamp (2016/0240019) further in view of Bandarra (2023/0145354) further in view of Balakrishnan (2020/0312063)
Claim 1: Kannappa discloses: A system for in-vehicle voice feedback (IVVF), comprising:
a storage comprising maintained customer feedback; and (Kannappa ¶0017 disclosing a system for obtaining customer feedback; the feedback system stores feedback data or other data in data storage)
Kannappa in view of Tamp discloses:
a cloud server configured to: receive customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle, the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data,
Kannappa discloses receiving customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle: (Kannappa ¶0019 disclosing the customer may provide voice feedback; a computing system such as an in-vehicle computer may record and/or process audio feedback spoken by the customer; ¶0051 disclosing the feedback may be about service and associating the feedback with a type of vehicle service performed). Kannappa does not explicitly disclose a cloud server, and that the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data. Tamp suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Tamp ¶0016 disclosing a user may input a command into an infotainment system (e.g., perform a gesture, issue a voice command, or press a dedicated button) to initiate a feedback process; process may include collecting, for example, system logs (software logs) for the mobile device, GPS data, a screenshot or video of what was displayed on the screen immediately before or at the time of the input was given (e.g., the gesture being performed or key being pressed); ¶0018 disclosing the system logs being the operating system or software running on the device or software running of the device, vehicle settings, etc.; ¶0019 disclosing mobile device may receive signals from the vehicle such as the infotainment system status and/or vehicle status (controller information); system may also store one or more images of the infotainment display; data may include, for example, a sensor log of the motor vehicle, a GPS location, a date, a time, an image of the infotainment system, a video of the infotainment system, a log of the infotainment system, and a mobile device log; ¶0023 disclosing the system may display a portion of the snapshot data such as the image captured when the feedback process was initiated; the user may enter a comment regarding the snapshot or portion thereof such as the system's user interface was incorrect or provided incorrect navigation instructions; ¶0025 disclosing the processor may be configured to receive an indication of an input ( e.g., a gesture, voice command) from an infotaimnent system or a button press indicating the user's desire to initiate a feedback process; ¶0032 disclosing the clients communicating with one or more servers, and accessing services provided by cloud computing arrangements and services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa to include a cloud server configured to: receive customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle, the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data as taught by Tamp. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in order to provide an automatic feedback system that permits an operator of a motor vehicle to submit feedback (see ¶0013 of Tamp).
Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra discloses:
bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage,
Kannappa in view of Tamp discloses, as indicated in the above limitations, categories pertaining to the feedback data based on the textual content of the voice data, and the feedback data associated with a vehicle function, but does not explicitly disclose binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage. Bandarra suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0094 the feedback unit can comprise a voice dialog system in order to include the feedback from the user or driver of the vehicle with respect to the perceived disturbance with respect to the perceived vehicle fault; acquiring the feedback via the voice dialog system, which can be part of the infotainment system of the vehicle; ¶0043 the disturbance perceived by the user or driver of the vehicle with respect to the vehicle fault can thus be acquired, integrated into the snapshot and concomitantly communicated to the backend for possible fault diagnosis; ¶0165 the backend can comprise or access the storage unit 320 in order to process the snapshot(s); ¶0166 disclosing the captured feedback can be classified by the feedback unit (categories), and Fig. 4 disclosing subcategories related to vehicle functions (e.g., powertrain, gears, body, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tam in order to provide a solution
that enables improved, dynamic detection of faults in the vehicle and thus improves vehicle diagnostic systems (see ¶0003 of Bandarra).
Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra further in view of Balakrishnan discloses:
store the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and store the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data, and
Kannappa discloses storing feedback in a database, but does not explicitly disclose store the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and store the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data. Balakrishnan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Balakrishnan ¶0118 disclosing the panic determination module can cause the video tag device (IVFF database) 106 to store the panic alert and transmit the panic alert to another telematics device 101, the mobile device 104, or the server 110, or combinations of them; the panic determination module can cause the video tag device 106 to capture, store (for example, as telematics data 544 in the memory 502 (vehicle data database)), and transmit telematics parameters and telematics data, such as audio, image, and video data, in response to the panic alert or other safety alert; the video tag device 106 can capture one or more snapshot images of the interior or exterior or both of the vehicle 108 in response to the alert, and can transmit the snapshot images, along with previously recorded audio data or other telematics data, to another telematics device 101, the mobile device 104, or the server 110, or combinations of them, in real time or upon request; ¶0129 disclosing the server 110 may store the telematics data, along with other information about the participants, components, and devices in the technology 100, and associations among them, in a database 130 that can communicate with the server 110; see also Fig. 1A and 1B disclosing the video tag device 106 that stores the feedback data, and the server 110 and database 130 that stores the feedback data; Fig. 9A disclosing the links in the to the vehicle data corresponding to the voice data, see also ¶0134 disclosing the alerts along with the IDs and links; ¶0135 disclosing the interface containing additional details and telematics data associated with the panic alert or other safety alert; interface can include playback features to allow the user to listen to the audio or watch the video or both directly within the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra to include storing the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and storing the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data as taught by Balakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
present a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data.
Kannappa discloses a portal and interface where the user can view and input feedback, but does not explicitly disclose presenting a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data. Balakrishnan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Balakrishnan Fig. 9A disclosing the links in the to the vehicle data corresponding to the voice data, see also ¶0134 disclosing the alerts along with the IDs and links; ¶0135 disclosing the interface containing additional details and telematics data associated with the panic alert or other safety alert; interface can include playback features to allow the user to listen to the audio or watch the video or both directly within the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra to include presenting a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data as taught by Balakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Claim 9 is directed to a method. Claim 9 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a system. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 18: Kannappa discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for in- vehicle voice feedback (IVVF) that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations including to: (Kannappa ¶0080 disclosing computer program products comprising such logic ( e.g., in the form of software) stored on any computer useable medium; such software, when executed in one or more data processing devices, causes a device to operate as described herein)
perform speech-to-text processing on the customer feedback to generate textual content of the speech in the corresponding voice data, (Kannappa ¶0019 disclosing the customer may provide voice feedback; a computing system such as an in-vehicle computer may record and/or process audio feedback spoken by the customer; ¶0032 disclosing the voice feedback component is configured to process voice feedback within feedback provided by a user or customer; e.g., a user may provide feedback by speaking to and/or recording speech using a user device, such as a computing device, mobile device, or in-vehicle computer; the voice feedback component may convert speech to text and process the text to determine a rating, comments, or other feedback data)
Kannappa in view of Tamp discloses:
receive customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle, the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data,
Kannappa discloses receiving customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle: (Kannappa ¶0019 disclosing the customer may provide voice feedback; a computing system such as an in-vehicle computer may record and/or process audio feedback spoken by the customer; ¶0051 disclosing the feedback may be about service and associating the feedback with a type of vehicle service performed). Kannappa does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data. Tamp suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Tamp ¶0016 disclosing a user may input a command into an infotainment system (e.g., perform a gesture, issue a voice command, or press a dedicated button) to initiate a feedback process; process may include collecting, for example, system logs (software logs) for the mobile device, GPS data, a screenshot or video of what was displayed on the screen immediately before or at the time of the input was given (e.g., the gesture being performed or key being pressed); ¶0018 disclosing the system logs being the operating system or software running on the device or software running of the device, vehicle settings, etc.; ¶0019 disclosing mobile device may receive signals from the vehicle such as the infotainment system status and/or vehicle status (controller information); system may also store one or more images of the infotainment display; data may include, for example, a sensor log of the motor vehicle, a GPS location, a date, a time, an image of the infotainment system, a video of the infotainment system, a log of the infotainment system, and a mobile device log; ¶0023 disclosing the system may display a portion of the snapshot data such as the image captured when the feedback process was initiated; the user may enter a comment regarding the snapshot or portion thereof such as the system's user interface was incorrect or provided incorrect navigation instructions; ¶0025 disclosing the processor may be configured to receive an indication of an input ( e.g., a gesture, voice command) from an infotaimnent system or a button press indicating the user's desire to initiate a feedback process; ¶0032 disclosing the clients communicating with one or more servers, and accessing services provided by cloud computing arrangements and services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa to include a cloud server configured to: receive customer feedback from a vehicle, the received customer feedback including voice data and vehicle data, the voice data including speech recorded by the vehicle from an occupant of the vehicle, the vehicle data including a snapshot of information descriptive of operation of the vehicle, wherein the snapshot includes diagnostic information including one or more of controller information, software logs, or diagnostic test code (DTC) data, and wherein the snapshot is captured responsive to capture of the voice data as taught by Tamp. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in order to provide an automatic feedback system that permits an operator of a motor vehicle to submit feedback (see ¶0013 of Tamp).
Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra discloses:
wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories at least according to vehicle function as indicated by the textual content of the speech in the corresponding voice data, add the received customer feedback to maintained customer feedback of a storage,
Kannappa in view of Tamp discloses, as indicated in the above limitations, categories pertaining to the feedback data based on the textual content of the voice data, and the feedback data associated with a vehicle function, but does not explicitly disclose binning the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage. Bandarra suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0094 the feedback unit can comprise a voice dialog system in order to include the feedback from the user or driver of the vehicle with respect to the perceived disturbance with respect to the perceived vehicle fault; acquiring the feedback via the voice dialog system, which can be part of the infotainment system of the vehicle; ¶0043 the disturbance perceived by the user or driver of the vehicle with respect to the vehicle fault can thus be acquired, integrated into the snapshot and concomitantly communicated to the backend for possible fault diagnosis; ¶0165 the backend can comprise or access the storage unit 320 in order to process the snapshot(s); ¶0166 disclosing the captured feedback can be classified by the feedback unit (categories), and Fig. 4 disclosing subcategories related to vehicle functions (e.g., powertrain, gears, body, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include a hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, and bin the vehicle data into a category of a hierarchy of categories based on textual content of the speech in the voice data, wherein the hierarchy of categories includes at least a vehicle function category and one or more subcategories under the vehicle function category, add the received customer feedback to the maintained customer feedback of the storage as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tam in order to provide a solution that enables improved, dynamic detection of faults in the vehicle and thus improves vehicle diagnostic systems (see ¶0003 of Bandarra).
Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra further in view of Balakrishnan discloses:
store the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and store the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data, and
Kannappa discloses storing feedback in a database, but does not explicitly disclose store the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and store the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data. Balakrishnan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Balakrishnan ¶0118 disclosing the panic determination module can cause the video tag device (IVFF database) 106 to store the panic alert and transmit the panic alert to another telematics device 101, the mobile device 104, or the server 110, or combinations of them; the panic determination module can cause the video tag device 106 to capture, store (for example, as telematics data 544 in the memory 502 (vehicle data database)), and transmit telematics parameters and telematics data, such as audio, image, and video data, in response to the panic alert or other safety alert; the video tag device 106 can capture one or more snapshot images of the interior or exterior or both of the vehicle 108 in response to the alert, and can transmit the snapshot images, along with previously recorded audio data or other telematics data, to another telematics device 101, the mobile device 104, or the server 110, or combinations of them, in real time or upon request; ¶0129 disclosing the server 110 may store the telematics data, along with other information about the participants, components, and devices in the technology 100, and associations among them, in a database 130 that can communicate with the server 110; see also Fig. 1A and 1B disclosing the video tag device 106 that stores the feedback data, and the server 110 and database 130 that stores the feedback data; Fig. 9A disclosing the links in the to the vehicle data corresponding to the voice data, see also ¶0134 disclosing the alerts along with the IDs and links; ¶0135 disclosing the interface containing additional details and telematics data associated with the panic alert or other safety alert; interface can include playback features to allow the user to listen to the audio or watch the video or both directly within the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra to include storing the vehicle data in a vehicle data database of the storage and storing the voice data in an IVVF database of the storage, wherein the voice data in the IVVF database is stored with links to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data as taught by Balakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
present a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, including to filter at least by a selected one vehicle function, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data.
Kannappa discloses a portal and interface where the user can view and input feedback, but does not explicitly disclose presenting a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data. Balakrishnan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Balakrishnan Fig. 9A disclosing the links in the to the vehicle data corresponding to the voice data, see also ¶0134 disclosing the alerts along with the IDs and links; ¶0135 disclosing the interface containing additional details and telematics data associated with the panic alert or other safety alert; interface can include playback features to allow the user to listen to the audio or watch the video or both directly within the user interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp further in view of Bandarra to include presenting a portal application to a client device, the portal application presenting a user interface to allow the client device to explore a navigable view of the hierarchy of categories and view the maintained customer feedback filtered to a selected one of the hierarchy of categories, wherein the portal application presents, for each voice data record, a link to provide access to the vehicle data in the vehicle data database corresponding to the voice data as taught by Balakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein the cloud server is further configured to: utilize a semantic analyzer to identify sentiment in the speech; augment the voice data to include the identified sentiment; and present the sentiment in the portal application along with the maintained customer feedback. (Kannappa ¶0033 disclosing the voice feedback component is configured to perform sentiment analysis on recorded voice or speech, e.g., audio recordings of speech often include more data than just the words spoken; the speaker's emotional state, sentiment, or other emotional or physiological condition may be inferred based on intonations, speaking speed, or even the words used; based on the audio, the voice feedback component may perform sentiment analyses and determined whether the reviewer was happy, excited, angry, or the like; speaker's emotional state may be determined and recorded; based on the emotional state, the rating or feedback for a specific dealer, service provider, or other entity or individual may be modified, e.g., happy or excited voice intonations may increase the rating for a dealership; ¶0037 disclosing publish feedback or data based on the feedback received from customers, e.g., a website, mobile app, or in-vehicle computing system may display the ratings, comments, or other feedback information to a customer to allow the customer to make an informed decision in selecting a dealership or service center)
Claims 12 and 21 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 12 and 21 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a system. Claims 12 and 21 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The system of claim 1,
wherein the cloud server is further configured to bin the voice data according to keywords, verbs, or phrases included in the voice data.
Kannappa discloses the feedback data being applicable to different categories (e.g., a service or a sale), but does not explicitly disclose that the cloud server is further configured to bin the voice data according to keywords, verbs, or phrases included in the voice data. Bandarra suggests or disclose or suggests this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0030-¶0036 disclosing examples of the provision of feedback by a user of the vehicle via voice dialog system with respect to a mechanical problem can be “Whenever I start the vehicle, it makes strange noises” and a host of other feedback; ¶0042 and ¶0043 further disclosing that the feedback can be classified (binned) by the feedback input unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include that the cloud server is further configured to bin the voice data according to keywords, verbs, or phrases included in the voice data as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp in order to improve dynamic detection of faults in the
vehicle and thus improving vehicle diagnostic systems (see ¶0003 of Bandarra).
Claims 13 and 22 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 13 and 22 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a system. Claims 13 and 22 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the cloud server is further configured to:
identify a potential solution for an issue indicated by the maintained customer feedback based on the category that the voice data is binned into the hierarchy of categories; and send a message to contact information corresponding to the maintained customer feedback, the message indicating the potential solution.
Kannappa discloses the feedback data being applicable to different categories (e.g., a service or a sale) in order to identify avenues for improvement in customer service or experience, but does not explicitly disclose identifying a potential solution for an issue indicated by the maintained customer feedback based on the category that the voice data is binned into the hierarchy of categories; and send a message to contact information corresponding to the maintained customer feedback, the message indicating the potential solution. Bandarra suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0064 the received snapshot can be evaluated by the backend; the snapshot can be communicated to a service employee or tele-assistance employee; the latter, in order to obtain further information with respect to the vehicle fault, for example, may contact the user of the vehicle and/or propose a service appointment for the vehicle; in addition or as an alternative thereto, the snapshot data can also be used by workshops and/or problem management teams in order to find solutions to problems). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include identifying a potential solution for an issue indicated by the maintained customer feedback based on the category that the voice data is binned into the hierarchy of categories; and send a message to contact information corresponding to the maintained customer feedback, the message indicating the potential solution as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp such that not only can the vehicle fault be dealt with promptly and individually, but a direct communication channel to the user of the vehicle can also be established (see ¶0064 of Bandarra).
Claims 14 and 23 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 14 and 23 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a system. Claims 14 and 23 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Claim 7: The system of claim 6, wherein the cloud server is further configured to:
responsive to the cloud server receiving a reply to the message, automatically open a support record linked to the voice data and the vehicle data of the received customer feedback for analysis.
Kannappa discloses storing the feedback data, but does not explicitly disclose responsive to the cloud server receiving a reply to the message, automatically open a support record linked to the voice data and the vehicle data of the received customer feedback for analysis. Tamp suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Tamp ¶0023 disclosing the system may display a portion of the snapshot data such as the image captured when the feedback process was initiated; the notification may be sent to the user as a text message or appear as an application notification; a hyperlink may be contained in the text message that launches a web page into which the user may provide feedback or selection of the notification may trigger the launch of an application specific to providing feedback; the user may enter a comment regarding the snapshot or portion thereof such as the system's user interface was incorrect or provided incorrect navigation instructions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa to include responsive to the cloud server receiving a reply to the message, automatically open a support record linked to the voice data and the vehicle data of the received customer feedback for analysis as taught by Tamp. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in order to provide an automatic feedback system that permits an operator of a motor vehicle to submit feedback (see ¶0013 of Tamp).
Claims 15 and 24 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 15 and 24 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a system. Claims 15 and 24 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim 8: The system of claim 6,
wherein the cloud server is further configured to utilize the vehicle data to identify a root cause for the issue.
Kannappa discloses using the customer feedback to identify an issue or avenue to improve, but does not explicitly disclose that the cloud server is further configured to utilize the vehicle data to identify a root cause for the issue. Bandarra suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0119 the disturbance perceived by the user or driver of the vehicle with respect to the vehicle fault can thus be acquired, integrated into the snapshot and concomitantly communicated to a backend for possible fault diagnosis; by classifying the feedback via the feedback unit, it is possible to realize a uniform data structure for problem description and to communicate it to the backend for possible fault diagnosis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include that the cloud server is further configured to utilize the vehicle data to identify a root cause for the issue as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp in order to improve vehicle diagnostic systems since they often do not recognize fault states (see ¶0139 of Bandarra).
Claims 16 and 25 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 16 and 25 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards a system. Claims 16 and 25 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Claim 17: The method of claim 9, further comprising:
presenting, via a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, a prompt for receiving the voice data for the received customer feedback; receiving the voice data from the occupant of the vehicle; capturing the snapshot of information descriptive of the operation of the vehicle; and sending, from the vehicle to the cloud server, the received customer feedback including the voice data and the snapshot.
Kannappa discloses presenting, via a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, a prompt for receiving the voice data for the received customer feedback; receiving the voice data from the occupant of the vehicle; and sending, from the vehicle to the cloud server, the received customer feedback including the voice data: (Kannappa ¶0018 disclosing a request for feedback may be sent to one or more of the destinations to prompt the customer for feedback; e.g., the request may be sent to an email address, mobile application on a mobile phone or other mobile device, an in-dash computing system in the vehicle, or any other location; in response to the request, the customer may provide feedback using the mobile application on the mobile device, a website using a computer system, and/or an in-vehicle computing system in the vehicle; ¶0017 disclosing the feedback system stores feedback data or other data in data storage; ¶0030 also disclosing the backend server may receive the data entered or provided by the customer and forward the feedback to the feedback system; the response component may store the feedback data in a data store, such as the data storage; ¶0019 disclosing the customer may provide voice feedback; a computing system such as an in-vehicle computer may record and/or process audio feedback spoken by the customer; the user may interface with a touch screen, keyboard, or other input device to indicate a rating or comments for the sale or service; a computing system (such as the computer system, mobile device , or an in-vehicle computer) may record and/or process audio feedback spoken by the customer; see also ¶0045; ¶0051 disclosing the feedback may be about service and associating the feedback with a type of vehicle service performed). Kannappa does not explicitly disclose capturing the snapshot of information descriptive of the operation of the vehicle; and sending, from the vehicle to the cloud server, the received customer feedback including the voice data and the snapshot. Tamp suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Tamp ¶0023 disclosing the system may display a portion of the snapshot data such as the image captured when the feedback process was initiated; the user may enter a comment regarding the snapshot or portion thereof such as the system's user interface was incorrect or provided incorrect navigation instructions; ¶0025 disclosing the processor may be configured to receive an indication of an input ( e.g., a gesture, voice command) from an infotaimnent system or a button press indicating the user's desire to initiate a feedback process; ¶0032 disclosing the clients communicating with one or more servers, and accessing services provided by cloud computing arrangements and services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa to include capturing the snapshot of information descriptive of the operation of the vehicle; and sending, from the vehicle to the cloud server, the received customer feedback including the voice data and the snapshot as taught by Tamp. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in order to provide an automatic feedback system that permits an operator of a motor vehicle to submit feedback (see ¶0013 of Tamp).
Claim 26: The system of claim 1,
wherein the cloud server is further configured to raise a feedback request responsive to occurrence of a DTC, the feedback request requesting the customer feedback to indicate what was being experienced by the vehicle when the DTC was encountered.
Kannappa in view of Tamp discloses feedback data relating to vehicle function, but does not explicitly disclose that the cloud server is further configured to raise a feedback request responsive to occurrence of a DTC, the feedback request requesting the customer feedback to indicate what was being experienced by the vehicle when the DTC was encountered. Bandarra suggests or disclose or suggests this limitation/concept: (Bandarra ¶0002 a specific fault code or error code or diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is assigned to each fault; ¶0047 data with respect to a vehicle fault recognized or perceived by a user of a vehicle can thus be acquired independently of defined or undefined fault codes for one or more electronic and/or electrical vehicle components and independently of whether a threshold value required for a defined fault code is exceeded, and can be communicated to the backend for further fault detection or fault processing; ¶0011 the input unit can be part of an infotainment system of the vehicle; when a vehicle fault with respect to an electronic and/or electrical component of the vehicle is recognized, a user of the vehicle can effect an input with respect to the vehicle fault via the input unit; ¶0013 the feedback unit is configured to acquire feedback about the vehicle fault; ¶0030-¶0036 disclosing examples of the provision of feedback by a user of the vehicle via voice dialog system with respect to a mechanical problem can be “Whenever I start the vehicle, it makes strange noises” and a host of other feedback; ¶0042 and ¶0043 further disclosing that the feedback can be classified (binned) by the feedback input unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp to include wherein the cloud server is further configured to raise a feedback request responsive to occurrence of a DTC, the feedback request requesting the customer feedback to indicate what was being experienced by the vehicle when the DTC was encountered as taught by Bandarra. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kannappa in view of Tamp in order to improve dynamic detection of faults in the vehicle and thus improving vehicle diagnostic systems (see ¶0003 of Bandarra).
Claim 27: The method of claim 17, further comprising sending a request via email to request the prompt be opened to provide the customer feedback. (Kannappa ¶0018 disclosing a request for feedback may be sent to one or more of the destinations to prompt the customer for feedback; e.g., the request may be sent to an email address, mobile application on a mobile phone or other mobile device, an in-dash computing system in the vehicle, or any other location; in response to the request, the customer may provide feedback using the mobile application on the mobile device, a website using a computer system, and/or an in-vehicle computing system in the vehicle)
Claim 28: The method of claim 27, further comprising sending the request at predefined feedback intervals. (Kannappa ¶0028 disclosing the request for feedback may be sent within a threshold time period of the event component identifying the occurrence of an event, e.g., the request component may send the request to the customer within a threshold time period of completion of a service; within a threshold number of seconds or minutes in response the event component determining the occurrence of a sale or service of a vehicle)
Claim 29: The method of claim 17, further comprising sending a request to be displayed in the HMI of the vehicle as a news item to request the prompt be opened to provide the customer feedback. (Kannappa ¶0028 an in-vehicle computer may display a notification in an in-dash display or other location to allow the customer to provide their feedback through the in-vehicle computer)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628