CTFR 18/611,386 CTFR 90194 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-22 are pending in this application. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are canceled. Response to Arguments Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is proper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea. Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware comprising the following limitations: Receiving simultaneous utterances from multiple speakers; Generating a command list; Determining and classifying an intention of each utterance; and Selectively recognizing speech. These steps describe the receiving, generating, analyzing, and selecting for speech recognition. Courts have consistently held that such concepts—collecting information, analyzing or processing data—are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection, analysis, and display are abstract ideas); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content is an abstract idea). Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter? The claim recites implementation on generic data processing hardware and routine computer components such as applications and monitoring modules executing on the user device. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or any particular hardware configuration that improves the performance of the device. Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintaining at this time. Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 07-38 Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 4-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites “processing an utterance of a first passenger, the utterance requesting execution of speech recognition; generating a command list based on the utterance; determining, based on a plurality of utterances being simultaneously received from a plurality of seats, respectively, intention of each of the plurality of utterances; and processing a speech act of a first utterance among the plurality of utterances based on the intention of each utterance”. The limitation of “processing…”, “generating…”, “determining…” and “processing” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human organizing of activities. More specifically, a human listens utterance and processes an act based on the intention of the utterances. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim 11, the claim is similar to claim 1 and claim 11 recites additional element of “processor” and “memory”. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to dependent claims 4-10 and 14-22, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1, 4-11 and 14-22 are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 1, 8-9, 11, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US Pub. 2022/0415321) i n view of Pfeffinger et al., (US Pub. 2023/0178077) . Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a method for speech recognition in a vehicle, the method comprising: processing an utterance of a first passenger, the utterance requesting execution of speech recognition (Fig. 14, step S1410, [0009][0192][0193] receiving wake up voice for activating voice recognition function by electronic device which is mounted in the vehicle); generating a command list based on the utterance (Fig. 14, step S1420, [0194] displaying one or more voice command guidance UIs); and processing utterances included in the acoustic signals on a [seat-by-seat] basis to determine and classify an intention of each of a plurality of utterances generated from the plurality of seats (Fig. 14, steps S1440-1450 and S1470-1490, [0053][0196]-[0201] receiving voice input, e.g., ‘Navigate to destination’, ‘Play next song’ and etc., from at least one occupant, e.g., a driver, a front passenger, or a rear passenger, and identifying function to execute); and Jung does not explicitly teach however Pfeffinger does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation: receiving acoustic signals in an overlapping time period, the acoustic signals being generated from a plurality of seats in the vehicle using a plurality of microphones respectively associated with the plurality of seats ([0025] receiving voice inputs provided concurrently when the periods during which the speakers are speaking at least partially overlap one another from the plurality of seats in the vehicle); processing utterances included in the acoustic signals on a [seat-by-seat] basis to determine and classify an intention of each of a plurality of utterances generated from the plurality of seats ([0025][0041][0051][0065][0066] processing the utterances of the driver and passenger, using information indicating their position and/or identity to determine whether the driver or passenger is authorized to control the application in the vehicle); and based on the intention of each utterance and the command list, selectively enabling speech recognition processing for an acoustic signal corresponding to a first utterance among the plurality of utterances; and ignoring speech recognition processing for acoustic signals corresponding to utterances other than the first utterance ([0025][0041][0051][0065][0066] when the speaker is authorized to control the application, the system performs process and when the speaker and when the speaker is not authorized, the system does not allow to control). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of operating a device mounted in vehicle as taught by Jung with the method of processing audio signals received in an overlapping time period as taught by Pfeffinger to improve the quality of interaction between the speaker and the system (Pfeffinger, [0014]). Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1, and Pfeffinger further discloses: based on the utterance of the first passenger being received, identifying a position of the utterance of the first passenger ([0024] information indicative of a speaker's identity may include the speaker's position within the environment). The previous motivation statement as in claim 1 is still applied. Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1, and Pfeffinger further discloses: wherein selectively enabling speech recognition processing includes: based on the intention of the utterance from each seat being found within the command list, determining a voice of a passenger in a corresponding seat as a valid command (Aggarwal, [0027][0028] determining whether the speaker is authorized to control a particular speech-enabled application based, at least in part, on the speaker's position and processing the command). The previous motivation statement as in claim 1 is still applied. Regarding claim 21, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1, and Jung further discloses: wherein the intention of the utterance for each seat is determined using an intention classifier ([0082][0141][0142] determining the intention of the utterance for each user ID). Regarding claims 11, 18-19 and 22, Claims 11, 18-19 and 22 are the corresponding system claim to method claims 1, 8-9 and 21. Therefore, claims 11, 18-19 and 22 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1, 8-9 and 21 above . 07-21-fti Claim s 4 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US Pub. 2022/0415321) i n view of Pfeffinger et al., (US Pub. 2023/0178077) and further i n view of Aggarwal et al., (US Pub. 2020/0339142) . Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1, and Jung further discloses: wherein selectively enabling speech recognition processing includes: based on (i) the utterance of the first passenger being requested the execution of speech recognition (Fig. 14, step S1410, [0009][0192][0193] receiving wake up voice for activating voice recognition function). Jung in view of Pfeffinger does not explicitly teach however Aggarwal does explicitly teach: (ii) the first passenger being moved to another seat in the plurality of seats, and (iii) the plurality of utterances being simultaneously received in response to the command list, recognizing the utterance from the first passenger to be processed, and wherein the first passenger initially executed the speech recognition through a speech recognition logic (Aggarwal, [0056][0057] accepting and performing a voice command from an unrestricted user regardless of where the user is sitting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of operating a device mounted in vehicle as taught by Jung in view of Pfeffinger with the method of authorizing access when operating an automated assistant enabled vehicle as taught by Aggarwal to provide the advantage of reducing computational and communication resources such as network bandwidth and channel usage time by increasing the number of interactions between the vehicle computing device and the server by limiting access to multiple users (Aggarwal, [0003]). Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 is the corresponding system claims to method claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 4 above . 07-21-fti Claim s 5, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US Pub. 2022/0415321) i n view of Pfeffinger et al., (US Pub. 2023/0178077) and further i n view of Choi et al., (US Pub. 2018/0173494) . Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1, and Jung further discloses: wherein selectively enabling speech recognition processing includes: based on (i) the utterance of the first passenger being requested the execution of speech recognition (Fig. 14, step S1410, [0009][0192][0193] receiving wake up voice for activating voice recognition function). Jung in view of Pfeffinger does not explicitly teach however Choi does explicitly teach: (ii) the intention of utterance from a second passenger, in response to the command list, being found within the command list, processing a speech act of the utterance from the second passenger (Choi, Fig. 8, [0184]-[0190] a first user 10 initiates to perform speech recognition and a second user 20 speaks a direct command to process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of operating a device mounted in vehicle as taught by Jung in view of Pfeffinger with the method of processing a direct speech command as taught by Choi to provide the advantage that users can easily control their devices without wasting time or resources to recognize and find intentions. Regarding claim 6, Jung in view of Pfeffinger and further in view of Choi discloses a method of claim 5. Jung in view of Pfeffinger does not explicitly teach however Choi does explicitly teach: ignoring, based on the first passenger being requested the execution of speech recognition and the intention of the utterance from the second passenger, in response to the command list, not being found within the command list, the utterance from the second passenger (Choi, Fig. 8, [0184]-[0190] a first user 10 initiates to perform speech recognition with speaking utterance which is not direct command). The previous motivation statement as in claim 5 is still applied. Regarding claims 15 and 16, Claims 15 and 16 are the corresponding system claims to method claims 5 and 6. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 5 and 6 above . 07-21-fti Claim s 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US Pub. 2022/0415321) i n view of Pfeffinger et al., (US Pub. 2023/0178077) and further i n view of Gupta et al., (US Pub. 2021/0263952) Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1. Jung in view of Pfeffinger does not explicitly teach however Gupta does explicitly teach: based on the utterance of the first passenger being received, determining the intention of the utterance of the first passenger and classifying a content of the utterance for each passenger (Gupta, Fig. 4, [0034] determining topic of user 1 and classifying a subtopic of the utterance for each passenger). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of operating a device mounted in vehicle as taught by Jung with the method of predicting where conversations are heading and identifying associated content to improve their contribution to the conversation or to better understand the conversation (Gupta, [0002]). Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 is the corresponding system claim to method claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 7 above . 07-21-fti Claim s 10 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US Pub. 2022/0415321) i n view of Pfeffinger et al., (US Pub. 2023/0178077) and further in view of Hernandez-Abrego et al., (US Pub. 2012/0295708) . Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Pfeffinger discloses a method of claim 1. Jung in view of Pfeffinger does not explicitly teach however Hernandez-Abrego does explicitly teach: wherein a microphone for each seat is activated ([0073] “Determining the directionality of sound can be performed in a plurality of ways, such as by using directional microphones, by using microphone arrays, by analyzing the arrival times of sound to the speakers”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of operating a device mounted in vehicle as taught by Jung with the method of inputting utterance by using directional microphones as taught by Hernandez-Abrego to improve the accuracy, with respect to the inputs received in isolation, by utilizing the different inputs for a reliable input validation (Hernandez-Abrego, [0025]). Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is the corresponding system claim to method claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 10 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892 . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM. 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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. Seong-ah A. Shin Primary Examiner Art Unit 2659 /SEONG-AH A SHIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 2 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 3 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 4 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 5 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 6 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 7 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 8 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 9 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 10 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 11 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 12 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 13 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 14 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/611,386 Page 15 Art Unit: 2659
Prosecution Insights