DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to remarks filed 4/27/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Priority documents for JP2021-209852 have not yet been received (see priority document exchange failure status report 8/8/2024).
Response to Amendment
4. Claims 1-11 have been amended. The title has been amended and is accepted. The 112f interpretation has been withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 Applicant argues on pages 16-23, and specifically page 21, that Gowda fails to disclose, teach, or suggest:
when absence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving a specific voice command successfully when an uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at a voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a first threshold value; and
when presence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification teaches:
[0060] In a situation in which a voice command is properly recognizable, such as when the passenger in the vehicle is facing in the travelling direction of the vehicle; if all of the six consecutive syllables “Ro⋅Ku⋅Ga⋅Ka⋅I⋅Shi” (in Japanese) are matching, then the voice command receiving unit 44 determines that a voice command is acquired. For example, the voice command receiving unit 44 sets the voice recognition rate, which is meant for determining that a voice command is acquired, to a first threshold value of 90%. In that case, from among the six syllables “Ro⋅Ku⋅Ga⋅Ka⋅I⋅Shi” (in Japanese), when 90% or more syllables can be recognized, the voice command receiving unit 44 determines that a voice command is acquired.
[0061] On the other hand, in a situation in which a voice command is not properly recognizable, such as when the passenger in the vehicle is facing in some other direction other than the travelling direction of the vehicle; if five or more of the six consecutive syllables “Ro⋅Ku⋅Ga⋅Ka⋅I⋅Shi” (in Japanese) are matching, then the voice command receiving unit 44 determines that a voice command is acquired. In that case, the voice command receiving unit 44 sets the voice recognition rate, which is meant for determining that a voice command is acquired, to a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value. For example, the voice command receiving unit 44 sets the second threshold value to 80%. In that case, from among the six consecutive syllables “Ro⋅Ku⋅Ga⋅Ka⋅I⋅Shi” (in Japanese), when 80% or more syllables can be recognized, the voice command receiving unit 44 determines that a voice command is acquired.
Gowda teaches:
when absence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving a specific voice command successfully when an uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at a voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a first threshold value (0032: the controller 16 is configured to generate and/or use one or both of the first confidence score and/or the second confidence score depending on whether one or more threshold is met and/or a domain match is made; [0039] In an embodiment, the controller 16 is programmed to access context data relating to the current state of the vehicle 12 and use the context data for generation of at least one confidence score as discussed herein. In an embodiment, a first confidence score is generated using the command data and not the context data; 51-54 – recognition without context data and compared to first threshold; 0054: first threshold; first confidence score; 0063); and
when presence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a second threshold value {that is smaller than the first threshold value} even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality ([0039] In an embodiment, the controller 16 is programmed to access context data relating to the current state of the vehicle 12 and use the context data for generation of at least one confidence score as discussed herein. In an embodiment, a first confidence score is generated using the command data and not the context data, and a second confidence score is generated using the command data and the context data. In an embodiment, the controller 16 generates the second confidence score when the context data corresponds to at least a portion of the command data;
[0061] In an embodiment, the context data can indicate that an occupant behavior caused the first output to not meet the first threshold. For example, the occupant state module 60c can be configured to detect if the occupant covered his or her mouth or yawned while speaking the audible command as discussed herein. In this case, the method 100 at step 108 can use this occupant data to attribute the failure to meet the first threshold at step 106 as being caused by the occupant’s mouth covering or yawn due to mispronunciation of an audible command that is likely correct. Thus, in an embodiment, the controller 16 proceeds to step 118 upon determining that an occupant behavior (e.g., a yawn) occurred during speaking of the audible command.; 62-64;
0065: second threshold; second confidence score);
But does not specifically teach where Doyle et al (2006/0265223) teaches
a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value
(Abstract; rejection threshold reduced; 17; [0024] If the measurement of the input signal quality is low, the rejection threshold can be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Doyle for improved speech recognition for different context and situations.
Gowda already teaches recognizing user or environmental situations that could lead to poor recognition, and incorporating context and multiple thresholds to still perform and complete recognition. Doyle also teaches adjusting thresholds to accommodate different conditions when attempting to perform recognition, and one could thus look to Doyle to allow the second threshold of Gowda to be smaller than the first threshold value for improved recognition, allowing the recognition to still be performed when faced with non-ideal circumstances and still presenting a reasonable expectation of success. The implementation allowing:
the user can be better guided should a problem occur, which in turn will increase perceived recognition engine performance (Doyle et al 0017); and
reduce confusion in voice interaction, particularly when there is an error (e.g., an ASR or NLU error), by instructing the speaker as to what corrective measures to take in a follow-up audible command. The present disclosure also provides systems and methods which use the surrounding context of the vehicle to help interpret the type of error. In doing so, the present disclosure allows for clarity for the user in picking the right dialog repair strategy (Gowda 0003).
Thus, as application states:
the voice command receiving unit 44 sets the voice recognition rate, which is meant for determining that a voice command is acquired, to a first threshold value of 90%.
It appears that the rate corresponds to some score or measure, compared to a threshold value, which is taught by the cited prior art of record, Gowda, which teaches receiving the specific voice command successfully (recognizing the voice command) when it meets/exceeds the particular threshold value.
Therefore, the cited prior art of record reads on the limitations as currently recited, and the rejections are maintained. The additional independent claims (10-11) are rejected based on arguments presented above and art rejections below.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues on page 32 that Gowda and Doyle do not teach the limitations of claim 7, and that Tang fails to cure the deficiencies of Gowda and Doyle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 7 Gowda and Doyle teach The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which the voice command is not properly recognizable, {a distance between a microphone, which acquires an uttered voice of the voice command, and a person who utters the voice command,} and
The receiving the voice command includes:
{when the distance is determined to be shorter than a predetermined distance,} receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value; and
{when the distance is determined to be equal to or longer than the predetermined distance,} receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when then uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1,
But does not specifically teach where Tang 2017/0025121 teaches
as the condition leading to the situation in which the voice command is not properly recognizable, a distance between a microphone, which acquires an uttered voice of the voice command, and a person who utters the voice command (8; 20; 55-57: mobile terminal acquires a distance to a user, and determines, according to the distance), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when the distance is determined to be shorter than a predetermined distance (57: if the distance to the user is less); and
when the distance is determined to be equal to or longer than the predetermined distance (57 if the distance to the user is not less),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate distance characteristics (of Tang) to incorporate additional circumstances that could affect voice recognition and adapt the thresholds accordingly for improved speech recognition in various circumstances and conditions. Gowda already teaches a list of conditions that can be recognized that could impact recognition and adjusting thresholds. Thus, one could look to Tang to further incorporate additional information about the conditions for additional compensation for improved speech recognition to ensure recognition can still be carried out in various circumstances and scenarios, which can perform speech collection and recognition in a more flexible manner, and improve a recognition rate of a speech signal (Tang 0005).
Regarding claims 8-9, Applicant argues on pages 33-34 that Gowda and Doyle do not teach the limitations, and that Fountaine and Liao fail to cure the deficiencies of Gowda and Doyle for their respective limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further,
Fountaine teaches:
([0084] The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may be similar to the speech recognition engine 460 but with enhanced and/or emphasized capability to recognize, interpret and/or identify an emergency speech 561 of the user 100. For example the emergency speech 561 may be: an emergency word such as “help!” (e.g., the emergency word 1110 of FIG. 11); a speech tone tending to indicate anxiety, pain, or suffering; and/or abnormally rapid, loud or incoherent speech. The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may also have a lower threshold for recognizing certain words commonly associated with danger or injury to the user 100, for example “medication”, “dizzy”, “injury”, “smoke”, explitives, and similar words. In one or more embodiments, the emergency speech recognition engine 560 may simultaneously receive the voice communication 110 of the user 100 at the same time as the speech recognition engine 460; however, upon meeting a threshold number of words associated with an emergency, danger or injury to the user 100 the automated emergency assistance engine 562 may communicate with the assistance coordinator 214 to route communications primarily to the emergency server 500 and/or initiate frequent instances of the status query 107 to the user 100.).
Liao teaches:
([0018] When the voice recognition module 317 identifies a voice command from the user, it sends the command to the processor 313, the processor 313 controls the user interface module 315 to display the image of the corresponding driving assistance software and start the driving assistance software to execute actions according the voice command. The driving assistance software is capable of recording an image in the front of the vehicle 100 via the camera 33, and record sound within the vehicle 100 via the recording components of the portable smart device 30. The processor 313 transfers the recordings of the images and the sound to the microprocessor 181. The microprocessor 181 transfers the above-mentioned recordings to the storage module 187 to be saved.).
And with Gowda and Doyle, teach the limitations of their respective claims (8 and 9).
Therefore, the cited prior art of record reads on the limitations as currently recited, and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda et al (2023/0035752) in view of Doyle et al (2006/0265223).
Regarding claim 1 Gowda et al (2023/0035752) teaches A voice command receiving device ([0001] The present disclosure generally relates to systems and methods of responding to audible commands and/or adjusting vehicle components.) comprising:
At least one memory that stores computer executable instructions (0017: memory); and
At least one processor that executes the computer executable instructions to perform operations (0017 processor), comprising:
receiving a voice command (4; [0029] The vehicle 12 includes an audio device 24. The audio device 24 is configured to receive an audible command from an occupant of the vehicle 12; 0030);
in an environment in which the voice command is uttered, detecting a condition leading to a situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable (0032: the controller 16 is configured to generate and/or use one or both of the first confidence score and/or the second confidence score depending on whether one or more threshold is met and/or a domain match is made;
[0061] In an embodiment, the context data can indicate that an occupant behavior caused the first output to not meet the first threshold. For example, the occupant state module 60c can be configured to detect if the occupant covered his or her mouth or yawned while speaking the audible command as discussed herein. In this case, the method 100 at step 108 can use this occupant data to attribute the failure to meet the first threshold at step 106 as being caused by the occupant’s mouth covering or yawn due to mispronunciation of an audible command that is likely correct. Thus, in an embodiment, the controller 16 proceeds to step 118 upon determining that an occupant behavior (e.g., a yawn) occurred during speaking of the audible command.); and
when the voice command is received successfully, implementing a function with respect to the received voice command ([0031] The audio device 24 is configured to generate command data based on an audible command.; ASR; NLU; 0040: adjusting vehicle components based on audible commands; 53),
wherein the receiving the voice command includes:
when absence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving a specific voice command successfully when an uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at a voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a first threshold value (0032: the controller 16 is configured to generate and/or use one or both of the first confidence score and/or the second confidence score depending on whether one or more threshold is met and/or a domain match is made; [0039] In an embodiment, the controller 16 is programmed to access context data relating to the current state of the vehicle 12 and use the context data for generation of at least one confidence score as discussed herein. In an embodiment, a first confidence score is generated using the command data and not the context data; 51-54 – recognition without context data and compared to first threshold; 0054: first threshold; first confidence score; 0063); and
when presence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable is determined, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a second threshold value {that is smaller than the first threshold value} even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality ([0039] In an embodiment, the controller 16 is programmed to access context data relating to the current state of the vehicle 12 and use the context data for generation of at least one confidence score as discussed herein. In an embodiment, a first confidence score is generated using the command data and not the context data, and a second confidence score is generated using the command data and the context data. In an embodiment, the controller 16 generates the second confidence score when the context data corresponds to at least a portion of the command data;
[0061] In an embodiment, the context data can indicate that an occupant behavior caused the first output to not meet the first threshold. For example, the occupant state module 60c can be configured to detect if the occupant covered his or her mouth or yawned while speaking the audible command as discussed herein. In this case, the method 100 at step 108 can use this occupant data to attribute the failure to meet the first threshold at step 106 as being caused by the occupant’s mouth covering or yawn due to mispronunciation of an audible command that is likely correct. Thus, in an embodiment, the controller 16 proceeds to step 118 upon determining that an occupant behavior (e.g., a yawn) occurred during speaking of the audible command.; 62-64;
0065: second threshold; second confidence score);
But does not specifically teach where Doyle et al (2006/0265223) teaches
a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value
(Abstract; rejection threshold reduced; 17; [0024] If the measurement of the input signal quality is low, the rejection threshold can be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Doyle for improved speech recognition for different context and situations.
Gowda already teaches recognizing user or environmental situations that could lead to poor recognition, and incorporating context and multiple thresholds to still perform and complete recognition. Doyle also teaches adjusting thresholds to accommodate different conditions when attempting to perform recognition, and one could thus look to Doyle to allow the second threshold of Gowda to be smaller than the first threshold value for improved recognition, allowing the recognition to still be performed when faced with non-ideal circumstances and still presenting a reasonable expectation of success. The implementation allowing:
the user can be better guided should a problem occur, which in turn will increase perceived recognition engine performance (Doyle et al 0017); and
reduce confusion in voice interaction, particularly when there is an error (e.g., an ASR or NLU error), by instructing the speaker as to what corrective measures to take in a follow-up audible command. The present disclosure also provides systems and methods which use the surrounding context of the vehicle to help interpret the type of error. In doing so, the present disclosure allows for clarity for the user in picking the right dialog repair strategy (Gowda 0003).
Regarding claim 2 Gowda teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, an orientation of a face of a person who utters the voice command (0035; [0047] In an embodiment, the context data related to the current occupant of the vehicle 12 includes data from an image taken of the current occupant by an image sensor 30. From the image, the occupant state module 60c is configured to detect conditions such as the occupant’s line of sight and/or head position based on eye and/or head direction; 0061), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when the orientation of the face of the person is determined to be toward a microphone which acquires uttered voice of the voice command, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate, of equal to or greater than the first threshold value (51-54 – recognition without context and using first threshold); and
when orientation of face of the person is determined not to be toward the microphone, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality (0061-65 – recognition with context and using second threshold).
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1, where Doyle teaches second threshold smaller than the first
Regarding claim 3 Gowda teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, presence or absence of an object covering a mouth region of a person who utters the voice command ([0061] In an embodiment, the context data can indicate that an occupant behavior caused the first output to not meet the first threshold. For example, the occupant state module 60c can be configured to detect if the occupant covered his or her mouth or yawned while speaking the audible command as discussed herein. In this case, the method 100 at step 108 can use this occupant data to attribute the failure to meet the first threshold at step 106 as being caused by the occupant’s mouth covering or yawn due to mispronunciation of an audible command that is likely correct. Thus, in an embodiment, the controller 16 proceeds to step 118 upon determining that an occupant behavior (e.g., a yawn) occurred during speaking of the audible command.), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when absence of the object covering the mouth region of the person is determined, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value (51-54); and
when presence of the object covering the mouth region of the person is determined, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality (61-65).
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1, where Doyle teaches second threshold smaller than the first
Regarding claim 4 Gowda teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, a volume level of a background sound of an environment in which the voice command is received (0036: noise sensor; [0060] As an example, an emergency vehicle driving in the same lane as the vehicle 12 may cause the driver to require a volume adjustment of an in-vehicle system or a window adjustment to decrease the noise. The context module 50 is configured to generate context data corresponding to the emergency vehicle, for example, by detecting the siren of the emergency vehicle or other traffic data related to the emergency vehicle’s presence), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when the volume level of the background sound is determined to be lower than a predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value (51-54); and
when the volume level of the background sound is determined to be equal to or higher than the predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality (61-65).
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1, where Doyle teaches second threshold smaller than the first
Regarding claim 5 Doyle et al (2006/0265223) teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, a volume level of an uttered voice of the voice command (24: if input signal quality is low; 27: quality of input signal; [0067] The ASR system 310 includes an input signal quality measuring means 320 which quantifies the quality of the input signal. A rejection threshold adjustment means 322 is provided in a statistical pattern matcher 324 of the ASR system 310.
[0068] An input signal quality measure can be analyzed as follows.; 70 loudness), and The receiving the voice command includes:
when the volume level of the uttered voice of the voice command is determined to be equal to or higher than a predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value (0024); and
when the volume level of the uttered voice of the voice command is determined to be lower than the predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when then uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality ([0024] If the measurement of the input signal quality is low, the rejection threshold can be reduced and, if the measurement of the input signal quality is high, the rejection threshold can be increased; 29; 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate uttered voice characteristics (of Doyle) to incorporate additional circumstances that could affect voice recognition and adapt the thresholds accordingly for improved speech recognition in various circumstances and conditions. Gowda already teaches a list of conditions that can be recognized that could impact recognition and adjusting thresholds. Thus, one could look to Doyle to further incorporate additional information about the conditions for additional compensation for improved speech recognition to ensure recognition can still be carried out in various circumstances and scenarios.
Regarding claim 6 Doyle teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, a volume level difference between a volume level of a background sound of an environment in which the voice command is received and a volume level of an uttered voice of the voice command (0069: SNR), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when the volume level of the uttered voice of the voice command is determined to be higher by the volume level difference equal to or greater than a predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value (24; 29); and
when the volume level difference is determined to be smaller than the predetermined value or when the volume level of the background sound of environment, in which the voice command is received, is determined to be greater by a difference equal to or greater than the predetermined value, receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when then uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality (24; 29;
[0067] The ASR system 310 includes an input signal quality measuring means 320 which quantifies the quality of the input signal. A rejection threshold adjustment means 322 is provided in a statistical pattern matcher 324 of the ASR system 310.
[0068] An input signal quality measure can be analyzed as follows.
[0069] (1) SNR (signal-to-noise) measure: A signal-to-noise estimate is the ratio between good candidate signal (speech) to background noise. A high value suggests that the signal is well differentiated from the noise; a low value, that signal and noise are less distinguishable. The SNR affects later processing. The SNR can be estimated by standard signal processing techniques which usually involve frequency as well as time domain analyzes.; 74-75; 89; 94; 111).
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 5
Regarding claim 10 Gowda and Doyle teach
A voice command receiving method implemented in a voice command receiving device, comprising:
detecting, in an environment in which a voice command is uttered, a condition leading to a situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable;
receiving, when it is determined to have an absence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, a specific voice command successfully when an uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at a voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a first threshold value;
receiving, when it is determined to have presence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality; and
implementing, when the voice command is received, a function with respect to the received voice command.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Regarding claim 11 Gowda and Doyle teach
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute:
detecting, in an environment in which a voice command is uttered, a condition leading to a situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable;
receiving, when it is determined to have an absence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, a specific voice command successfully when an uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at a voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a first threshold value;
receiving, when it is determined to have presence of the condition leading to the situation in which any voice command is not properly recognizable, the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value even when the uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality; and
implementing, when the voice command is received, a function with respect to the received voice command.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda et al (2023/0035752) in view of Doyle et al (2006/0265223) in further view of Tang 2017/0025121.
Regarding claim 7 Gowda and Doyle teach The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
The detecting includes detecting, as the condition leading to the situation in which the voice command is not properly recognizable, {a distance between a microphone, which acquires an uttered voice of the voice command, and a person who utters the voice command,} and
The receiving the voice command includes:
{when the distance is determined to be shorter than a predetermined distance,} receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the first threshold value; and
{when the distance is determined to be equal to or longer than the predetermined distance,} receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when then uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality
Rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1,
But does not specifically teach where Tang 2017/0025121 teaches
as the condition leading to the situation in which the voice command is not properly recognizable, a distance between a microphone, which acquires an uttered voice of the voice command, and a person who utters the voice command (8; 20; 55-57: mobile terminal acquires a distance to a user, and determines, according to the distance), and
The receiving the voice command includes:
when the distance is determined to be shorter than a predetermined distance (57: if the distance to the user is less); and
when the distance is determined to be equal to or longer than the predetermined distance (57 if the distance to the user is not less),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate distance characteristics (of Tang) to incorporate additional circumstances that could affect voice recognition and adapt the thresholds accordingly for improved speech recognition in various circumstances and conditions. Gowda already teaches a list of conditions that can be recognized that could impact recognition and adjusting thresholds. Thus, one could look to Tang to further incorporate additional information about the conditions for additional compensation for improved speech recognition to ensure recognition can still be carried out in various circumstances and scenarios, which can perform speech collection and recognition in a more flexible manner, and improve a recognition rate of a speech signal (Tang 0005).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda et al (2023/0035752) in view of Doyle et al (2006/0265223) in further view of Fountaine 2018/0325470.
Regarding claim 8 Gowda does not specifically teach where Fountaine teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein, with respect to the voice command having a high urgency or a high immediacy, the receiving the voice command includes receiving the specific voice command successfully when the uttered voice command matches the specific voice command at the voice recognition rate of equal to or greater than the second threshold value even when then uttered voice command is not recognizable in totality
([0084] The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may be similar to the speech recognition engine 460 but with enhanced and/or emphasized capability to recognize, interpret and/or identify an emergency speech 561 of the user 100. For example the emergency speech 561 may be: an emergency word such as “help!” (e.g., the emergency word 1110 of FIG. 11); a speech tone tending to indicate anxiety, pain, or suffering; and/or abnormally rapid, loud or incoherent speech. The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may also have a lower threshold for recognizing certain words commonly associated with danger or injury to the user 100, for example “medication”, “dizzy”, “injury”, “smoke”, explitives, and similar words. In one or more embodiments, the emergency speech recognition engine 560 may simultaneously receive the voice communication 110 of the user 100 at the same time as the speech recognition engine 460; however, upon meeting a threshold number of words associated with an emergency, danger or injury to the user 100 the automated emergency assistance engine 562 may communicate with the assistance coordinator 214 to route communications primarily to the emergency server 500 and/or initiate frequent instances of the status query 107 to the user 100.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate important terms (of Fountaine) to incorporate additional circumstances that could affect voice recognition and adapt the thresholds accordingly for improved speech recognition in various circumstances and conditions, and for further voice controlled assistance for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions such as caregiver communication.(0002 Fountaine)
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda et al (2023/0035752) in view of Doyle et al (2006/0265223) in further view of Liao (2014/0354881).
Regarding claim 9 Gowda does not specifically teach where Liao teaches The voice command receiving device according to claim 1, wherein
the voice command receiving device is a recording control device used in a vehicle (0018), and
wherein the operations further comprise acquiring first video data taken by a first photographing unit which takes a photograph of a surrounding of the vehicle (0018),
the receiving the voice command includes receiving an event recording instruction via the voice command (0018), and
the implementing the function includes, when the event recording instruction is received via the voice command, storing as event data the first video data capturing point of time of receiving the event recording instruction ([0018] When the voice recognition module 317 identifies a voice command from the user, it sends the command to the processor 313, the processor 313 controls the user interface module 315 to display the image of the corresponding driving assistance software and start the driving assistance software to execute actions according the voice command. The driving assistance software is capable of recording an image in the front of the vehicle 100 via the camera 33, and record sound within the vehicle 100 via the recording components of the portable smart device 30. The processor 313 transfers the recordings of the images and the sound to the microprocessor 181. The microprocessor 181 transfers the above-mentioned recordings to the storage module 187 to be saved.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate voice-initiated recording of Liao for an improved system to allow for additional vehicular components to be operated using voice. Gowda already teaches voice commands for adjustable vehicle components, and one could look to Lao to provide an additional adjustable vehicle component for improved vehicle operation and presenting a reasonable expectation of success.
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 SHAUN A ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights