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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 10-11, 13, 15 and 20-21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki et al. (US 2017/0236510) and in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0258512).
As to claim 1, Fuchiwaki teaches method (Fig.7) implemented by a vehicle-mounted device (Fig.1, 10), wherein the method comprises: obtaining voice information of a user S100, wherein the voice information instructs to perform an operation; selecting S112, a target device from candidate devices 110-116 based on the voice information ([0098] ,,, the main voice recognition unit 210 executes the voice recognition process on the input voice to extract a command from the input voice and determine the function designated by the extracted command)(S110). the main voice recognition unit 210 may determine the function designated by the command by extracting predefined words and/or phrases (e.g., the phrase “play . . . ” for instructing execution of the music playing function, or the phrase “search for a route to . . . ” for instructing execution of the navigation function, or the phrase “turn on the windshield wiper” for instructing to start operation of the wiper as a part of vehicle operation)., wherein the candidate devices comprise the vehicle-mounted device 10 and at least one terminal device 110-116; sending S132 indication information to the target device ([0015] the control unit is configured to instruct the external device to operate by sending an operation instruction signal to instruct the external device to operate) when the target device is the at least one terminal device, wherein the indication information instructs the target device to perform the operation ([0057] In addition, based on the command extracted by the main voice recognition unit 210 … the command processing unit 212 instructs any of the audio unit 202, the navigation unit 204, the ECUs 160a and 160b, and the first, second, third, and fourth external devices 110, 112, 114, 116 to execute an operation determined by the extracted command and the Operation Instruction Information.); and performing the operation (S116 send to ECU for the operation) when the target device is the vehicle-mounted device (Figs.1, 7-10; Pars. 15, 22, 42, 64, 126, 151).
It is noted that while Fuchikawa teaches the external devices are enabled based on the voice information (Par.23), “in order to prevent conflict between the operation of the voice recognition functions of the devices” he doesn’t explicitly teach where the devices comprise a first and second wake word engine as recited in the claim.
However, Smith teaches a method for controlling a first device 790a and a second device 790b, using a voice command, wherein the first and the second device comprise a first voice processor 760a and first wake-word engine 770a and a second voice processor 760b and a second wake-word engine 770b, the method comprising the steps of receiving a voice input at the first device, processing the voice input and execute the command, wherein during the processing of the voice input by the first device, the second wake-word engine of the second device is disabled (Pars.146, 154; Figs,7A-7E, 11).
The modification and combination of the analogous teachings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose suppressing inadvertent detection of the voice input by the (second/external) device, in order to prevent potentially conflicting actions by the unintended device.
As to claim 2, Fuchiwaki teaches registering the at least one terminal device with the vehicle-mounted device based on registration information of the at least one terminal device (Fig.2, 206, 208; Fig.5, Fig.7, S130).
As to claim 4, Fuchiwaki teaches wherein the registration information further comprises device information, inherently, comprising at least one of the device type or media access control (MAC) address information (Figs.2, 5-6; Pars.65, 68, 73).
As to claims 6 and 15, Fuchiwaki teaches where the devices are selected based on the voice information comprising intent (Figs.6-7).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 13 and 20-21, the corresponding instructions and device for performing the steps recited in the method claims above are analogous, therefore rejected as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki and in view of Smith for the foregoing reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki et al.
As to claims 7-8 and 16-17, Fuchiwaki teaches wherein selecting the target device comprises: selecting a candidate device subset from the candidate devices based on the intent information, wherein a type of each first candidate device in the candidate device subset corresponds to the intent information (Figs.1-14) and Atsumi teaches a wake word and where the user identity is processed to authenticate the user and register the device (Pars.28, 39-42).
But, they do not explicitly teach selecting the target device from the candidate device subset based on the user identity information.
However, Official Notice is taken that a method of selecting a target device from a plurality of devices based on the identity of the user is common and well known in the art and would be obvious in the teachings of Fuchiwaki and Atsumi, for the purpose of identifying devices associated with the user thereby correctly identifying the target device. For such teaching see
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki et al. (US 2017/0236510) in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0258512) as applied above and further in view of Penilla et al. (US 2016/0104486).
As to claims 3 and 12, Fuchiwaki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the registration information comprises account information, and wherein the account information comprises at least one of an account identifier of the user, voiceprint feature information of the user, or facial image feature information of the user.
However, Pennila in analogous art teaches a method performed by a vehicle electronic system 161, and user mobile device 210, the method comprising receiving voice command of a user at the mobile device or at the vehicle electronic system and performing a number of operations, according to the command wherein the mobile device is identified and synchronized based on the user registration/account information that includes one of an account identifier of the user, voiceprint feature information of the user, or facial image feature information of the user (Figs.7, 9A, 24; Pars.129, 152, 162, 171-173, 223, 311, 349, 371).
The combination of the analogous teachings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of facilitating the communication between the external devices and the vehicle mounted system.
As to claims 5 and 14, Pennila teaches the step of sending, search/pairing information to the at least one terminal device, wherein the search information instructs the at least one terminal device to register/synchronize with the vehicle-mounted device; and receiving the registration information from the at least one terminal device (Pars.173, 185-186, 202, 311).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki et al. (US 2017/0236510) as applied above and in view of Atsumi (US 2022/0310090).
As to claims 9 and 18, Fuchiwaki doesn’t explicitly teach obtaining user identity as cited in the claims. However, Atsumi in analogous art teaches a method comprising a vehicle on board device 30 comprising a first recognition unit 31 and a portable terminal 20 comprising a second recognition unit 22, wherein received voice command from a user is processed and executed by the vehicle device or by the portable device based on the voice command upon detection of wake-up word including the steps of obtaining the user identity information from, at least one piece of user feature information, wherein the user feature information comprises sound source positioning information of the user, voiceprint feature information of the user, or facial image feature information of the user (Pars.28, 39-42).
The combination of the analogous teachings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of speeding up the command receiving and execution process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights