DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 19 December 2025, the Applicant has filed a response on 18 March 2026.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claim 11 was objected to for a minor informality. The Applicant has amended the informality. The Examiner hereby withdraws the claim objection.
Claims 1 – 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The Applicant has now amended independent claims 1 and 6 in order to address this rejection, the Applicant providing ‘additional real-world elements’ to highlight the existence of a practical application (Remarks: Page 8 par 6). The claims now contain the recited features of the determination of the closest microphone, and the determination of a best camera position for evaluating a sightline. Upon further consideration, the Examiner believes these added limitations to the claims to be suitable to overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection given to the claims, the Applicant has amended the independent claims to include limitations that weren’t previously considered and are believed to not be addressed by the most-recent prior art. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claim. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the appropriate section below.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of Nongpiur et al. (US 2008/0019537 A1: hereafter — Nongpiur), further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0408029 A1: hereafter — Wang), and further in view of Li (US 2019/0294252 A1).
For claim 1, Heisterkamp discloses a method comprising causing an automotive assistant in a vehicle to disregard a first utterance, said first utterance having been made by a first occupant in said vehicle, wherein causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant); [0008] — receiving speech input from a vehicle passenger) comprises;
receiving said first utterance (Heisterkamp: [0008] — receiving speech input from a vehicle passenger; [0055]–[0056] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle to be controlled using speech);
determining the first sightline of said first occupant [[via the camera best positioned]] (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant) to be controlled by detecting a passenger’s gaze (indicating an occupant of the vehicle); [0028] — a video camera positioned to detect a vehicle passenger’s gesture); and
based at least in part on said first sightline, causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant) to be controlled by detecting a passenger’s gaze (indicating an occupant of the vehicle); [0030] — the functional units can include controlling means for windows, exterior mirrors, sunroof (controlling these parts teach of providing the passenger in the vehicle with an assistive feature, examples from [0041], [0042] being the rolling down of windows as a feature that assists the user in the vehicle)).
The reference of Heisterkamp provides teaching for receiving an utterance made by an occupant in a vehicle. This reference however does not teach of selecting a microphone from a plurality of microphones.
This is not new to the art as the reference of Nongpiur is now introduced to teach this as:
determining, among a plurality of microphones in the vehicle, a closest microphone to the first occupant (Nongpiur: [0083] — in systems having directional microphones (teaching of a plurality of microphones), the microphone closest to the driver may be selected).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Nongpiur which provides the selection of a closest microphone from multiple microphones, with the teaching of Heisterkamp which simply teaches of receiving an utterance made by a vehicle occupant, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result that selecting the closest microphone would lead obtaining audio with the highest SNR and thereby, the clearest signal for the system to work with. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur provides teaching for a vehicle system which receives an utterance made by a vehicle occupant, while also performing sightline detection. The teaching of this combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention provides the selection of a best camera from multiple cameras to be applied to the detection of the sightline.
The reference of Wang is now introduced to teach this as:
determining, among a plurality of cameras [[in the vehicle]], a camera best positioned to evaluate a first sightline of the first occupant (Wang: [0036], [0038] — selecting the best camera for viewing a speaker from a plurality of speakers).
The reference of Wang does not address a vehicle system, but this has been addressed by the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Wang which is able to make a selection of the best camera from a plurality of cameras for tracking a speaker based on receiving speech from that speaker, with the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur which simply teaches of receiving an utterance made by a vehicle occupant and a general sightline detection of the vehicle occupant, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of having a multi-camera setup that can be directed to each of different passengers sitting in different locations within a vehicle, enabling more precise tracking of where an utterance might be coming from, and thereby directing command controls to the particular vehicle occupant. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang provides teaching for detecting a vehicle occupant’s sightline to determine if an automotive assistant is to address a command, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further teaches of disregarding speech where the occupant is detected not be in the sightline.
The reference of Li is however introduced to teach this as:
a method comprising causing an automotive assistant in a vehicle to disregard a first utterance, said first utterance having been made by a first occupant in said vehicle, wherein causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Li: [0045] — ‘[i]f a device cannot ascertain that a user gazes at it, the device may ignore a voice command’ (to show that a speech command/first utterance is disregarded if the speaker is not in the sightline)) comprises:
determining the first sightline of said first occupant via the camera best positioned (Li: [0045] — ‘[i]f a device cannot ascertain that a user gazes at it’ (to indicate the detection of an occupant’s sightline)), and
based at least in part on said first sightline, causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Li: [0045] — ‘[i]f a device cannot ascertain that a user gazes at it, the device may ignore a voice command’ (to show that a speech command/first utterance is disregarded if the speaker is not in the sightline)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang which provides that an occupant in a vehicle can gaze upon a functional unit of a vehicle to determine that the functional unit is to be controlled, by incorporating the known teaching of Li which detects if a user is in a sightline of a device to determine if the user’s command should be disregarded, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of presenting a system that addresses users’ commands only when it is determined that the commands are indeed directed to the automotive assistant, thereby conserving resources by not addressing every single detected command. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li discloses the method, further comprising causing said automotive assistant to respond to a second utterance, wherein causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance comprises receiving, from a second occupant of said vehicle, said second utterance, determining a sightline of said second occupant, and based at least in part on said sightline of said second occupant, causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance (Li: [0045] — ‘[w]hen it is concluded that a user gazes at a device within a given short time period, like five to ten seconds, after a voice command is received, the command is implemented at the device’ (when a sightline is detected, the speech gets addressed);
Heisterkamp: [0016] — the gesture can be carried out by several vehicle passengers (to show that this could be performed by a second occupant)).
For claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li discloses the method, further comprising causing said automotive assistant to respond to a second utterance, wherein causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance comprises receiving said second utterance from said first occupant, determining a second sightline of said first occupant, and based at least in part on said second sightline, causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance (Li: [0045] — ‘[w]hen it is concluded that a user gazes at a device within a given short time period, like five to ten seconds, after a voice command is received, the command is implemented at the device’ (when a sightline is detected, the speech gets addressed);
Heisterkamp: [0016] — the gesture can be carried out by several vehicle passengers (to show that this could be performed by a first occupant)).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of Nongpiur et al. (US 2008/0019537 A1: hereafter — Nongpiur), further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0408029 A1: hereafter — Wang), and further in view of Li (US 2019/0294252 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Summa et al. (US 2020/0227034 A1: hereafter — Summa).
For claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li provides teaching for addressing an automotive assistance in a vehicle through detecting an occupant’s sightline. This combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li however fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Summa is now introduced to teach as:
the method, wherein said method further comprises further comprising determining that said first sightline fails to intersect an ocular zone that has been defined for said automotive assistant for use by said first occupant of said vehicle and, based at least in part on said sightline having failed to intersect said ocular zone, causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Summa: [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display, and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the particular designated section of the display screen is the ocular zone which a user’s sightline is detected to intersect, and voice assistance is activated only when the user’s sightline intersects the ocular zone, so it wouldn’t be activated when the user’s sightline does not intersect the ocular zone, and the user’s first utterance would be disregarded)).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li provides teaching for determining a sightline to determine if to disregard a first utterance from an occupant in a vehicle, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for disregarding the first utterance when a sightline is detected to have failed to intersect an ocular zone. This is not new to the art as the reference of Summa is now introduced to teach this as provided above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang and further in view of Li which provides determining a sightline to determine if to disregard a first utterance from an occupant in a vehicle, by incorporating the known teaching of Summa which disregards the first utterance when a sightline is detected to have failed to intersect an ocular zone, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of preventing an automotive assistance barge-in so as not to have the assistant address a user’s speech when a user isn’t addressing the device.
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and as applied to claim 4 above, the combination of Heisterkamp in view of Nongpiur further in view of Wang, further in view of Li, and further in view of Summa discloses the method, further comprising causing said automotive assistant to respond to a second utterance, wherein causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance comprises receiving said second utterance, determining a second sightline, said second sightline being a sightline of whomever made said second utterance, determining that said second sightline intersects an ocular zone designated for whomever made said second utterance, and, based at least in part on said sightline having intersected said ocular zone, causing said automotive assistant to respond to said second utterance (Summa: [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display, and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the particular designated section of the display screen is the ocular zone which a user’s sightline is detected to intersect, and voice assistance is activated only when the user’s sightline intersects the ocular zone)).
The same motivation applied to claim 4 for incorporating the reference of Summa is applicable here still.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon et al. (US 2021/0158809 A1: hereafter — VanBlon) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1).
For claim 6, Heisterkamp discloses an apparatus comprising an automotive assistant [[and a speech filter, wherein said speech filter causes said automotive assistant to disregard an utterance from an occupant]] based on said occupant’s sightline (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant) to be controlled by detecting a passenger’s gaze (indicating an occupant’s sightline in the vehicle); [0086] — processing units and storage media, suitable to read on the apparatus of this claim; [0030] — the functional units can include controlling means for windows, exterior mirrors, sunroof (controlling these parts teach of providing the passenger in the vehicle with an assistive feature, examples from [0041], [0042] being the rolling down of windows as a feature that assists the user in the vehicle); [0008] — receiving speech input from a vehicle passenger; [0055]–[0056] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle to be controlled using speech);
wherein the automotive assistant is configured to:
receive the utterance (Heisterkamp: [0008] — receiving speech input from a vehicle passenger; [0055]–[0056] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle to be controlled using speech);
determining the occupant’s sightline [[via the camera best positioned]] (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant) to be controlled by detecting a passenger’s gaze (indicating an occupant of the vehicle); [0028] — a video camera positioned to detect a vehicle passenger’s gesture), and
based at least in part on said first sightline, causing said automotive assistant to disregard said first utterance (Heisterkamp: [0007] — selecting a functional unit of a vehicle (indicating an automotive assistant) to be controlled by detecting a passenger’s gaze (indicating an occupant of the vehicle); [0030] — the functional units can include controlling means for windows, exterior mirrors, sunroof (controlling these parts teach of providing the passenger in the vehicle with an assistive feature, examples from [0041], [0042] being the rolling down of windows as a feature that assists the user in the vehicle)).
The reference of Heisterkamp provides teaching for an apparatus that controls an automotive assistant of a vehicle occupant through detecting the occupant’s sightline in addition to receiving an occupant’s speech utterance. The reference however fails to teach the further limitation regarding a speech filter.
The reference of VanBlon is now introduced to teach as:
an apparatus comprising an automotive assistant and a speech filter, wherein said speech filter causes said automotive assistant to disregard an utterance from an occupant based on said occupant’s sightline (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user; [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector));
determine the occupant’s sightline via the camera [[best positioned]] (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712 — a determination of if the user is looking at the device (thereby determining the user’s sightline); [0043] — the presence of an IR sensitive camera (used for detected a user’s sightline); [0051] — a camera for detecting the user’s gaze), and
based at least in part on said first sightline, causing [[said automotive assistant]] to disregard said first utterance (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector)).
Hence, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Heisterkamp which receives a vehicle occupant’s speech utterance and provides that a vehicle occupant can gaze upon a functional unit of a vehicle to be able to address an automotive assistant through controlling functional units, by incorporating the known teaching of VanBlon which provides the presence of a speech filter that results in disregarding speech based on not detecting a sightline, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of allowing or rejecting detected speech based on a determination of where the speech is being directed to, thereby conserving resources by not addressing every single detected command. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon provides teaching for receiving an utterance made by an occupant in a vehicle. This reference however does not teach of selecting a closest microphone from a plurality of microphones.
This is not new to the art as the reference of Nongpiur is now introduced to teach this as:
determine, among a plurality of microphones in the vehicle, a closest microphone to the first occupant (Nongpiur: [0083] — in systems having directional microphones (teaching of a plurality of microphones), the microphone closest to the driver may be selected).
The same motivation for combination as applied to claim 1 for introducing the Nongpiur reference is applicable here still.
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur provides teaching for a vehicle system which receives an utterance made by a vehicle occupant, while also performing sightline detection. The teaching of this combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention provides the selection of a best camera from multiple cameras to be applied to the detection of the sightline.
The reference of Wang is now introduced to teach this as:
determine, among a plurality of cameras [[in the vehicle]], a camera best positioned to evaluate a first sightline of the first occupant (Wang: [0036], [0038] — selecting the best camera for viewing a speaker from a plurality of speakers).
The same motivation for combination as applied to claim 1 for introducing the Wang reference is applicable here still.
For claim 15, claim 6 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang discloses the apparatus, further comprising a display, wherein said speech filter is configured to disregard said utterance when said occupant’s sightline fails to intersect said display (VanBlon: FIG. 4 Part 412, [0059] — a display device being present at a kiosk which the user faces in order to address the device; FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function (so if a user does not look in the direction of the display which is in the line of sight of the user, the user’s utterance gets disregarded)).
Claims 7, 8, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Summa (US 2020/0227034 A1).
For claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang discloses addressing an automotive assistance through the use of an occupant’s sightline detection (Heisterkamp: FIG. 2 Steps S200→S500, [0049] — detecting a gaze of a passenger to determine if a vehicle’s functional unit should be controlled).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang however fails to disclose the further limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Summa is now introduced to teach as:
the apparatus, wherein said speech filter comprises a sightline detector that determines whether said occupant’s sightline intersects an ocular zone that has been defined for use by said occupant when addressing said automotive assistant (Summa: [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display, and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the particular designated section of the display screen is the ocular zone which a user’s sightline is detected to intersect, and voice assistance is activated only when the user’s sightline intersects the ocular zone, so it wouldn’t be activated when the user’s sightline does not intersect the ocular zone, and the user’s first utterance would be disregarded)).
The same motivation for introducing the Summa reference as applied to claim 4 for introducing the Summa reference is applicable here still.
For claim 8, claim 6 is incorporated and as applied to claim 7 above, the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Summa discloses the apparatus, wherein said speech filter comprises a logic circuit that receives a signal indicating an utterance and a signal indicating whether or not a sightline of an occupant who made said utterance intersects an ocular zone of said automotive assistant (Summa: [0012] — the presence of a programmable integrated circuit for performing the intended speech filtering task; [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display, and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the invoking or not invoking of the user’s voice command is the signal that indicates that the user’s sightline has been detected to intersect the ocular zone of the device); [0037] — a microphone which receives voice commands).
For claim 11, claim 6 is incorporated and as applied to claim 7 above, the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Summa discloses the apparatus, wherein said speech filter comprises a sightline detector that sends a signal to said automotive assistant that indicates that said occupant’s sightline intersects an ocular zone that has been defined for use by said occupant when addressing said automotive assistant and wherein said automotive assistant is configured to interact with said occupant in response to receiving said signal from said sightline detector and detecting an utterance from said user (Summa: [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display (this being defined for use for the user while the user is addressing the device), and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the particular designated section of the display screen is the ocular zone which a user’s sightline is detected to intersect, and voice assistance is activated only when the user’s sightline intersects the ocular zone, so it wouldn’t be activated when the user’s sightline does not intersect the ocular zone, and the user’s first utterance would be disregarded) an then take corresponding actions in response to the voice commands (indicating an interaction with the user when the sightline and voice are detected)).
For claim 16, claim 6 is incorporated and as applied to claim 7 above, the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Summa discloses the apparatus, wherein said speech filter is configured to disregard said utterance when said occupant’s sightline fails to intersect an ocular volume that has been designated for said occupant (Summa: [0009] — having a built-in eye tracking hardware that is integrated to detect eye gaze on a device, detecting the eye gaze at a position of a hotspot zone on a video display, and a voice assistant companion may be invoked by a user’s voice command by a user’s eye gaze at a particular designated section of the display screen (the particular designated section of the display screen is the ocular volume designated for use by the user, such that if a user’s line of sight does not intersect it, speech recognition wouldn’t be activated and the user’s utterance would be disregarded)).
Claim 9 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Li (US 2022/0120579 A1).
For claim 9, claim 6 is incorporated but the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Li is now introduced to teach as the apparatus, wherein said speech filter comprises a speech detector, a sightline detector, and a logic circuit (Li: [0010] — a voice detector and a gaze detector; [0038] — a processor (as a logic circuit)), wherein said speech detector transmits an arming signal to said logic circuit upon having detected an utterance by said occupant, wherein said sightline detector sends a firing signal in response to having determined that said occupant’s sightline has intersected an ocular volume, wherein said logic circuit sends a trigger to said automotive assistant upon detecting both said firing signal and said arming signal, and wherein said automotive assistant interacts with said occupant in response to said trigger signal (Li: [0057] — collecting a user’s voice message as a voice recognition component receives a voice input, this can be a single word or phrase as ‘Start’ or ‘Turn on’ (as the arming signal); once the voice command has been detected, the user’s gaze direction is checked (as the firing signal, noting that the user’s gaze would have to be detected to intersect an ocular volume as defined by the device in FIG. 3 Step 114 and FIG. 4 Step 3); ‘[w]hen it is concluded that a user gazes at a device within a given short time period, like five to ten seconds, after a voice command is received, the command is implemented at the device’ (the five to ten-second gaze being the trigger to then have the system interact with the user by implementing the command).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for triggering an automotive assistant to respond to a user’s utterance after detecting the user’s line of sight, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for receiving a speech detection and a sightline detection in order to trigger responding to an utterance. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Li is seen to teach this above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which triggers an automotive assistant to respond to a user’s utterance after detecting the user’s sightline, by applying the known teaching of Li which triggers an assistant to respond to a user after detecting both speech and a directed gaze, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of addressing a user’s utterance only after it has been determined that the utterance is truly directed to the assistant device based on detecting an utterance for the assistant and that the user’s gaze is directed to the utterance, showing that the user truly intended on addressing the assistant device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Kurz (US 2020/0111472 A1).
For claim 10, claim 6 is incorporated but the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Kurz is now introduced to teach as:
the apparatus, wherein said speech filter filters an ambient sonic environment of a microphone in a vehicle so as to detect a signal that has properties of a human utterance (Kurz: [0012] — adaptive noise filtering that can filter unwanted background noise or ambient sound with the operation of a vehicle system to isolate certain sounds, avoiding the background sounds, as opposed to sounds of human speech; [0013] — a microphone for receiving sounds).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for the presence of a speech filter for disregarding utterance not from an occupant’s sightline. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the speech filter filtering ambient sonic environment of a microphone in a vehicle so as to detect signals that have properties of human utterance. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Kurz is seen to teach this above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the known technique of filtering out background noise to be able to properly address human speech as disclosed by the reference of Kurz, into improving upon the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which provides a speech filter for disregarding utterance not from an occupant’s sightline, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of not letting human speech commands get negatively influenced by environmental noises that could prevent the system from understanding the commands that are being presented. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of FROY, JR. et al. (US 2021/0335085 A1: hereafter — Froy JR).
For claim 12, claim 6 is incorporated and the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for the apparatus, wherein said occupant is one of a plurality of occupants in a vehicle, wherein said plurality of occupants comprises a first occupant and a second occupant (Heisterkamp: [0016] — the gesture can be carried out by several vehicle passengers (to show that this could be performed by a second occupant)).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang also provides teaching for being able to detect that an occupant is in a sightline of the device and a speech filter determined to disregard or to respond to the occupant based on the determined sightline (VanKomp: [0051] — identifying that a user is looking at a selector and then executing a function in accordance with the user’s audible input; FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang however fails to teach the further limitations of this claim regarding a first ocular zone being assigned to a first occupant and a second ocular zone being assigned to a second occupant.
The reference of Froy JR is however introduced to teach this as:
to cause [[said automotive assistant]] to disregard [[said first utterance]] and to respond to [[said second utterance]], wherein at the time of [[said first utterance]], a sightline of said first occupant misses said first ocular zone, and wherein, at the time of [[said second utterance]], a sightline of said second occupant intersects said second ocular zone (Froy JR: [0110] — “[i]n some embodiments, gaze direction data is generated corresponding to respective ones of the multiple players. For example, first gaze direction data may be generated for a first player and second gaze direction data may be generated for a second player. In such embodiments, the gaming device function may be modified to display multiple graphical elements at different relative locations on the display to attract the first player and the second player to gaze at the respective graphical elements. Some embodiments provide that the first and second players are awarded a score based on an amount of time that the first and second gaze direction data indicates that the first gaze direction and the second gaze direction are both directed to the graphical element”; FIG. 10 — showing the two players with their respective ocular zones controlling as aspect of the game based on eye tracking).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for the presence of a speech filter for disregarding an utterance not from an occupant’s sightline or responding to an utterance determined to be from an occupant’s sightline, in a situation that can involve multiple occupants. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides that each occupant has an individual ocular zone such that if a sightline of the first occupant misses the first ocular zone, the first utterance is disregarded, but if a sightline of the second occupant intersects the second ocular zone, the second utterance is responded to. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Froy JR is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which provides teaching for the presence of a speech filter for disregarding an utterance not from an occupant’s sightline or responding to an utterance determined to be from an occupant’s sightline, in a situation that can involve multiple occupants, with the known teaching of Froy JR which provides assigning particular ocular zones to each of two competitors such that each of the competitors can apply their individual gaze to their respectively generated gaze directions such that each competitor engages with objects on a screen by addressing objects in their respective gaze directions different from the gaze the direction of the other, to engage with the objects on the screen, tot hereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of allowing certain vehicle occupants control certain aspects of a vehicle through the automotive assistant, while preventing the vehicle’s driver from being able to control certain other aspects so that a driving distraction is not encountered. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 13, claim 6 is incorporated and as applied to claim 12 above, the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur, further in view of Wang, and further in view of Froy JR discloses the apparatus, wherein said speech filter is configured to disregard said utterance (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user) when said occupant’s sightline fails to intersect an ocular volume that has been designated for said occupant (Froy JR: [0110] — directing one ocular volume to a particular player (first occupant) whereby this ocular volume is different from that of the other player (second occupant)“[i]n some embodiments, gaze direction data is generated corresponding to respective ones of the multiple players. For example, first gaze direction data may be generated for a first player and second gaze direction data may be generated for a second player. In such embodiments, the gaming device function may be modified to display multiple graphical elements at different relative locations on the display to attract the first player and the second player to gaze at the respective graphical elements. Some embodiments provide that the first and second players are awarded a score based on an amount of time that the first and second gaze direction data indicates that the first gaze direction and the second gaze direction are both directed to the graphical element”; FIG. 10 — showing the two players with their respective ocular zones controlling as aspect of the game based on eye tracking).
The same motivation applied for incorporating the reference of Froy JR in claim 12 above is applicable here still.
Claim 17 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUNK et al. (US 2023/0103202 A1: hereafter — Funk) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view Novelli et al. (US 2021/0201021 A1: hereafter — Novelli), further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0408029 A1: hereafter — Wang).
For claim 17, Funk discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of microphones disposed in different locations in a vehicle (Funk: [0027] — a plurality of microphones arranged throughout a vehicle cabin);
a plurality of cameras disposed at dispersed locations in the vehicle (Funk: [0030] — multiple cameras within the vehicle, a camera being configured to detect a user’s gaze);
an automotive assistant (Funk: [0010] — a voice assistance system in an automotive); and
wherein the automotive assistant is configured to:
receive an utterance (Funk: [0032] — the system is able to determine if an utterance is directed to the system (indicating the receipt of an utterance)).
The reference of Funk provides teaching for an automotive assistant system which has a plurality of microphones and cameras disposed within a vehicle, whereby a vehicle occupant’s utterance gets received. This reference does not teach of the presence of a speech filter that comprises a sightline detector.
The reference of VanBlon is introduced to teach this as:
a speech filter comprising a sightline detector (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user; [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector)),
wherein said speech filter causes said [[automotive]] assistant to disregard an utterance from an occupant based on said occupant’s sightline, [[wherein said occupant comprises an eye and wherein the sightline detector that comprises a machine vision system that detects a location of a feature in said occupant’s eye and tracks said location to infer said occupant’s sightline]] (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user; [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector)), and
determine the occupant’s sightline via the camera best positioned (VanBlon: [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector)), and
based at least in part on said first sightline, cause [[the automotive]] assistant to disregard the utterance (VanBlon: FIG. 7 Step 712, 708 — when it is determined that a user is not looking at the device, the device declines to execute the function; [0073]–[0074] — the device may decline to execute any function in conformance with the audible input when it is determined that the user’s face is not detected (teaching of a speech filter which disregards an utterance based on not detecting the speaker’s sightline); [0021] — using beamforming (a speech filter) along with face recognition to determine if to process an input from the user; [0051] — a camera on the device for determining that a user is looking at the device (as a sightline detector)).
The reference of Funk provides teaching for an automotive assistant system having microphones and cameras within a vehicle, where an occupant’s utterance can be received. It differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further discloses a speech filter with a sightline detector whereby if a sightline is not detected, the speech is disregarded. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of VanBlon is seen to teach above. While VanBlon does not directly teach of an automotive assistant, it does teach of a digital assistant (VanBlon: [0018]) and an automotive assistance is seen to be provided by the Funk reference.
Hence, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Funk which receives a vehicle occupant’s speech utterance in a vehicle having multiple microphones for receiving an utterance and multiple cameras that can detect gaze, by incorporating the known teaching of VanBlon which provides the presence of a speech filter that results in disregarding speech based on not detecting a sightline, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of allowing or rejecting detected speech based on a determination of where the speech is being directed to, thereby conserving resources by not addressing every single detected command. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Funk in view of VanBlon provides teaching for a gaze detection, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides the application of machine vision to the sightline detection.
This is not new to the art as the reference of Novelli is introduced to teach this as:
wherein said speech filter causes said [[automotive]] assistant to disregard an utterance from an occupant based on said occupant’s sightline, wherein said occupant comprises an eye and wherein the sightline detector that comprises a machine vision system that detects a location of a feature in said occupant’s eye and tracks said location to infer said occupant’s sightline (Novelli: [0128]–[0129] — applying computer vision techniques to be able to detect a user’s gaze by looking at a vector between the centre of a user’s eye and a corresponding pupil (feature within the eye))).
The combination of Funk in view of VanBlon provides teaching for determining a line of sight of a user, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for inferring the line of sight through the detection of a location of a feature in said occupant’s eye and tracking its location. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Novelli is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the method of Novelli which determines a line of sight of a user by applying computer vision to track pupil in a human’s eye, to be incorporated into the sightline/gaze detection method of the combination of Funk in view of VanBlon, as an obvious method to try from a finite number of possible ways to detect a user’s sightline, and thereby to come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of understanding a user’s gaze position by following something as easy as a moveable part of the human eye, easily leading to detecting positions fields of view of where the user is gazing at. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Funk in view of VanBlon further in view of Novelli provides teaching for the presence of a plurality of microphones, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides the selection of the closest microphone from the plurality of microphones.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Nongpiur is now introduced to teach this as:
wherein the automotive assistant is configured to:
determine, among the plurality of microphones in the vehicle, a closest microphone to the first occupant (Nongpiur: [0083] — in systems having directional microphones (teaching of a plurality of microphones), the microphone closest to the driver may be selected).
The same motivation for combination as applied to claim 1 for introducing the Nongpiur reference is applicable here still.
The combination of Funk in view of VanBlon further in view of Novelli and further in view of Nongpiur provides teaching for the presence of multiple cameras within a vehicle, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the selection of the best camera for detecting an occupant’s sightline.
The reference of Wang is now introduced to teach this as:
determine, among the plurality of cameras [[in the vehicle]], a camera best positioned to evaluate the occupant’s sightline (Wang: [0036], [0038] — selecting the best camera for viewing a speaker from a plurality of speakers).
The same motivation for combination as applied to claim 1 for introducing the Wang reference is applicable here still.
Claim 18 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Hart et al. (US 8,700,392 B1: hereafter — Hart).
For claim 18, claim 6 is incorporated but the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Hart is now introduced to teach as the apparatus, wherein said occupant comprises an eye and wherein said apparatus further comprises a sightline detector that is configured to illuminate said eye with electromagnetic radiation that is outside the visible range and to observe the position of a reflection as a basis for inferring said occupant’s sightline (Hart: Col 18 lines 38–43 — determining a gaze direction by illuminating the eye with infrared radiation and capturing a reflected radiation).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for determining a line of sight of a user, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for determining the line of sight by illuminating the eye with electromagnetic radiation in order to observe the position of a reflection. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Hart is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found applying the known technique of Hart which determines a line of sight of a user by observing the reflection from an eye of an electromagnetic radiation applied to the eye, into improving upon the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which performs sightline detection, as an obvious method to try over other possible methods, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of using light reflection position to determine a relative position of the source of the light. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 19 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of LU et al. (US 2022/0179485 A1: hereafter — Lu).
For claim 19, claim 6 is incorporated but the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Hart is now introduced to teach as the apparatus, wherein said occupant comprises a face and an eye set in a socket on said face, wherein there exists a face vector normal to said face, wherein there exists an eye vector normal to said eye, wherein said eye is configured to swivel in said socket, thereby enabling said face vector and said eye vector to move independently of each other, and wherein said apparatus further comprises a sightline detector that is configured to determine a sightline based on said face vector and said eye vector (Lu: [0116]–[0121] — determining a gaze based on acquired face vector and eye vector (understanding that an occupant who is human would have a face, and eye in an eye socket on the face, and an eye that can swivel in the human’s eye socket)).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for determining a line of sight of a user, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for determining the line of sight through determining a face vector and an eye vector which move independently. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Lu is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the known technique of Lu which determines a line of sight of a user by obtaining a face vector separate from an eye vector, into improving upon the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which performs sightline detection, as an obvious method to try, over possible other finite methods, and to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result that the direction of a human’s gaze can be computed by observing the position of the eyes and the parts of an eye relative to the human’s face. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisterkamp (US 2014/0005857 A1) in view of VanBlon (US 2021/0158809 A1) further in view of Nongpiur (US 2008/0019537 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0408029 A1), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Chao et al. (US 2021/0358483 A1: hereafter — Chao).
For claim 20, claim 6 is incorporated but the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Chao is now introduced to teach as the apparatus, wherein said automotive assistant is configured to disregard said utterance in the absence of a high probability that said occupant is addressing said automotive assistant (Chao: [0029] — the client device may be a vehicle computing device; [0067] — a determination that a probability being below a predetermined threshold shows that an utterance is not directed to an automated assistant).
The combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang provides teaching for disregarding an utterance by an automotive assistant, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for determining to disregard the utterance by the automotive assistant in the absence of a high probability that the user is addressing the automotive assistant. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Chao is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Chao which determines that a speech probability being below a threshold is an indication that an assistant is not being addressed, with the teaching of the combination of Heisterkamp in view of VanBlon further in view of Nongpiur and further in view of Wang which disregards an utterance by an automotive assistant, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of conserving processing resources by only addressing utterances determined to be directed to the automotive assistant, ignoring others and preventing unnecessary system barge-in. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
05/30/2026
Prosecution Insights