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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on January 22, 2026 and February 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 and February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Yoshida would have to disclose updating one or more pre-defined scripts with information included in the text associated with the user’s response to generate one or more updated scripts (Applicant’s Response, pg. 11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Jung discloses receiving a voice input from an occupant of “Volume up” and identifying a short command matching the “volume up” and executing a media volume up function corresponding to the identified short command ([0197]). Yoshida discloses a user’s voice command of “change the sound volume to 5” and executing a function to set the sound volume to 5 ([0153-0155]). Jung, as modified, would receive a command to change the media volume to 5 (i.e., volume up to 5) and would find the function that corresponds to the volume up command. Instead of executing the generic volume up command, it would execute an updated volume up command to increasing the volume to 5.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on January 22, 2026.
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 2-6, 11, and 15-16 are 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.
In claim 2, lines 1-3, claim 11, lines 2-3, and claim 15, lines 2-3, the limitation "wherein the text segment specifies at least one pre-defined action for a device external to the vehicle perform" in combination with the limitation "wherein each stored intent specifies one or more pre-defined actions for a component of a vehicle to perform" in claim 1, lines 4-6, claim 10, lines 6-8, and claim 14, lines 7-9, respectively, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a pre-defined action can be performed by both a component of a vehicle and a device external to the vehicle. Paragraph 0065 states that the commands are either used within the vehicle or transmitted to one or more external devices.
Claims 3-6 and 16 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2022/0415321) in view of Yoshida (US 2007/0055423).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 14, Jung discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an auditory speech signal generated by a user (Jung, [0195] regarding receiving a voice input from an occupant);
converting the auditory speech signal into a text segment (Jung, [0196] regarding converting the received voice input into computer-readable text);
comparing the text segment to a set of stored intents, wherein each stored intent specifies one or more pre-defined actions for a component of a vehicle to perform (Jung, [0196-0198] regarding comparing the converted text to the one or more short commands corresponding to one or more voice command guidance UIs (e.g., matching the voice input "Volume up" to the short command matching "Volume up")); and
upon determining that the text segment corresponds to a first intent in the set of stored intents:
retrieving one or more pre-defined actions associated with the first intent; and
causing one or more corresponding components of the vehicle to perform one or more actions (Jung, [0197] regarding executing a function corresponding to the identified short command operation. By executing the function, it must have been retrieved from the memory (e.g. executing a media volume up function).).
Jung does not explicitly disclose updating the one or more pre-defined actions associated with the first intent with information included in the text segment to generate one or more updated actions associated with the first intent; and
causing one or more corresponding components of the vehicle to perform the one or more updated actions associated with the first intent.
Yoshida teaches changing the sound volume to a specific level requested (Yoshida, [0153-0155] regarding adjusting the sound volume to 5 based on the request of changing the sound volume to 5).
Jung and Yoshida are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle voice commands. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung to incorporate changing the volume to the requested amount, as disclosed by Yoshida, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing comfort of the user by making adjustments to exactly what they requested.
Jung, as modified, teaches updating the one or more pre-defined actions associated with the first intent with information included in the text segment to generate one or more updated actions associated with the first intent ; and
causing one or more corresponding components of the vehicle to perform the one or more updated actions associated with the first intent (Jung would determine an action associated with the volume up command, but instead of increasing the volume a standard amount it would update the command to increase the volume to the requested volume level).
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein causing the one or more corresponding components of the vehicle to perform the one or more updated actions associated with the first intent comprises:
generating one or more commands based on the one or more updated actions associated with the first intent; and
transmitting the one or more commands to the one or more corresponding components of the vehicle, wherein the one or more corresponding components of the vehicle perform the one or more updated actions by executing the one or more commands (Jung, [0197] regarding executing a function corresponding to the identified short command operation (e.g. executing a media volume up function). By executing the function, it must have been generated and transmitted to the entertainment system.).
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each action of the one or more pre-defined actions identifies at least one of:
a vehicle behavior performed by a component of the vehicle, or
a change to an application parameter executed by a component of the vehicle (Jung, [0197] regarding the short command being a media volume up function).
Regarding claim 19, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, wherein the one or more corresponding components include at least one of an entertainment subsystem, a navigation subsystem, an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), or a climate control subsystem (Jung, [0197] regarding the short command "Volume up" causing an execution of a media volume up function. Therefore the components being controlled is the entertainment subsystem.).
Claims 2, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view Yoshida, and further in view of Papadopol (US 2011/0093545).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 15, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the computer-implemented method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and system as claimed in claims 1, 10, and 14, respectively, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the text segment specifies at least one pre-defined action for a device external to the vehicle to perform.
Papadopol teaches wherein the text segment specifies at least one pre-defined action for a device external to the vehicle to perform (Papadopol, [0001] regarding using voice-activated control system of the vehicle to interface with a portable device).
Jung and Papadopol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of voice activated control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified, to incorporate voice control of a portable device, as disclosed by Papadopol, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the user to play music stored on the device.
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Yoshida and Papadopol teaches the system as claimed in claim 15. Papadopol further teaches wherein the device external to the vehicle comprises one of a wearable device, a sensor device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or a remote computing device (Papadopol, [0007] regarding the portable device being a smart phone or laptop computer (i.e., an Internet of Things)).
Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Yoshida and Papadopol, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2005/0240343).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, Jung in view of Yoshida and Papadopol teaches the computer-implemented method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and system as claimed in claims 2, 11, and 15, respectively. Jung further teaches transmitting the text segment to a remote service upon determining that the text segment does not correspond to at least one stored intent in the set of stored intents, (Jung, [0198] regarding transmitting the voice input data to a server if a short command corresponding to the text is not identified).
Schmidt teaches automatically adding the text segment to a queue when the vehicle does not have a network connection (Schmidt, [0044] regarding queuing data when not connect).
Jung and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle data transfer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified, to incorporate adding data to a queue when there is no network connection, as disclosed by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of saving the actions to be executed at a later time.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 18, Jung in view of Yoshida, Papadopol, and Schmidt teaches the computer-implemented method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and system as claimed in claims 3, 12, and 17, respectively. Jung further teaches transmitting the text segment to a remote service upon determining that the text segment does not correspond to at least one stored intent in the set of stored intents, (Jung, [0198] regarding transmitting the voice input data to a server if a short command corresponding to the text is not identified).
Schmidt further teaches upon determining that the vehicle has established the network connection with the remote service, transmitting the text segment from the queue to the remote service (Schmidt, Fig. 6 regarding queuing data until there is a connection).
Jung and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle data transfer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified, to incorporate transmitting the queued data, as disclosed by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of executing the saved actions.
Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of Yoshida, Papadopol, and Schmidt teaches the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 3. Jung further discloses wherein the remote service comprises at least one of a backend digital assistant service, an event-driven architecture, or a vehicle services platform (Jung, [0200] regarding the server identifying a function according to the detected intent and transmitting the information about the identified function to the electronic device (i.e., vehicle services platform)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Yoshida, and further in view of Aggarwal (US 2019/0206388).
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose receiving, via a user interface, a second set of intents; and
adding the second set of intents to the set of stored intents to generate an updated set of stored intents.
Aggarwal teaches receiving, via a user interface, a second set of intents; and
adding the second set of intents to the set of stored intents to generate an updated set of stored intents (Aggarwal, [0085] regarding updating the grammar of the user device).
Jung and Aggarwal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle voice control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified, to incorporate updating the stored commands, as disclosed by Aggarwal, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of decreasing the need of a network connection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view Yoshida, and further in view of Bayley (US 2019/0373419).
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, wherein causing the one or more corresponding components to perform the one or more updated actions associated with the first intent comprises sending instructions to a component controller application, wherein the component controller application:
generates one or more commands based on the one or more actions, and
transmits the one or more commands (Jung, [0197] regarding executing a function corresponding to the identified short command operation (e.g. executing a media volume up function). By executing the function, it must have been generated and transmitted to the entertainment system.).
Jung fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more commands are transmitted via a controller area network (CAN) bus to the one or more corresponding components.
Bayley teaches wherein the one or more commands are transmitted via a controller area network (CAN) bus to the one or more corresponding components (Bayley, [0105] regarding using a CAN bus to send commands to the appropriate controllers).
Jung and Bayley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified, to incorporate using a CAN bus to send commands, as disclosed by Bayley, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of sending control information to the proper component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665