DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 100, 110, 120, 630.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1 and 9, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method and device for performing a response action to a voice command. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for performing a response action to a voice command based on a passenger profile, the method comprising:
identifying a passenger in a vehicle; and
performing a response action corresponding to a voice command uttered by the identified passenger or a driver based on a passenger profile of the passenger,
wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of a vehicle control range, a points of interest (POI) search option, or preset information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the “identifying a passenger in a vehicle” step includes a human operator observing and identifying vehicle passengers. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for performing a response action to a voice command based on a passenger profile, the method comprising:
identifying a passenger in a vehicle; and
performing a response action corresponding to a voice command uttered by the identified passenger or a driver based on a passenger profile of the passenger,
wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of a vehicle control range, a points of interest (POI) search option, or preset information.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “performing a response action corresponding to a voice command uttered by the identified passenger or a driver based on a passenger profile of the passenger,” this limitation recites mere display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Examiner notes “a response action” includes a display because a response action includes providing search results to a user (see instant application [0088]-[0090], [0170]). Therefore, “a response action” is not limited to vehicle control and includes display that is insignificant extra solution activity. The “wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of a vehicle control range, a points of interest (POI) search option, or preset information” step includes storing search results into a passenger profile, which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The independent claims also recite the additional elements of a memory and processor which are generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118560 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 4-5 and 12-13, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the display of POI search results, which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118560 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by identifying a passenger using voice characteristics. For example, this claim includes a human determining which vehicle occupant is talking based on the voice characteristics of the speaker.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118560 A1 and Nishio et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0006200 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118560 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for performing a response action to a voice command based on a passenger profile (Kim Fig. 41-Fig. 43), the method comprising:
identifying a passenger in a vehicle (see at least Kim [0130]: “The dialogue system 100 may recognize the user's intent and context using the user's speech input via the speech input device 210, the input except for the user's speech, input via the information except for speech input device 220, and a variety of information input via the vehicle controller 240. The dialogue system 100 outputs a response to perform an action corresponding to the user's intent.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation identifying a passenger in a vehicle includes recognizing a vehicle user input);
and performing a response action corresponding to a voice command uttered by the identified passenger or a driver based on a passenger profile of the passenger (see at least Kim [0150]: “The speaker 232 may output a speech for navigation route guidance, a sound or a speech contained in the audio and video contents, a speech for providing information or service desired by the user, and a system utterance generated as a response to the user's utterance.”; [0330]: “For example, an action corresponding to the user's utterance, a safety score, a convenience score, a processing time, a processing point of time (i.e., whether to immediately process or not), a user preference (i.e., the user's reception level when suggesting a service or a preference predetermined by a user), an administrator score, a score related to vehicle state, and an action success rate (i.e., dialogue success rate) may be used as a parameter for calculating the score, as illustrated in the following Equation 1.”),
wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of a vehicle control range, a points of interest (POI) search option, or preset information (see at least Kim [0157]: “When the user utters “is there any restaurant around here?”, the dialogue system 100 may recognize the current location of the user and figure out that the user prefers the Chinese restaurant, from the long-term memory 143. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may recommend the list of user's favorite Chinese restaurant around the current location, by using the external content.”; Kim discloses at least a POI search option).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the response action comprises,
based on the voice command being related to vehicle control, controlling the vehicle according to the vehicle control range within the passenger profile (see at least Kim [0132]: “Further, according to the response output from the dialogue system 100, the vehicle controller 240 may control the vehicle 200 to perform an action corresponding to the user's intent or the current situation.”; [0353]: “Particularly, in a state in which the outside temperature is more than 20 degree while it is raining, when the air conditioner is turned on (ON), it may be identified that an air conditioner temperature is set to be low and thus “increasing an air conditioner temperature by 3 degree” may be stored as a vehicle control action corresponding thereto.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 2,
wherein the vehicle control range includes at least one of a window control range, a seat control range, a temperature control range, an air conditioning control range, a lighting control range, a volume control range, or a media control range (see at least Kim [0136]: “For example, when a user's body temperature is identified to be lower than a predetermined temperature based on the user information of the user received from the information except for speech input device 220, although a user utters “hands are freezing”, the dialogue system 100 may operate the air condition of the vehicle but operate the air conditioner with a weak air volume.”; [0353]: “Particularly, in a state in which the outside temperature is more than 20 degree while it is raining, when the air conditioner is turned on (ON), it may be identified that an air conditioner temperature is set to be low and thus “increasing an air conditioner temperature by 3 degree” may be stored as a vehicle control action corresponding thereto.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the response action includes,
based on the voice command being related to a POI search, providing at least one POI searched using the POI search option within the passenger profile (see at least Kim [0157]: “When the user utters “is there any restaurant around here?”, the dialogue system 100 may recognize the current location of the user and figure out that the user prefers the Chinese restaurant, from the long-term memory 143. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may recommend the list of user's favorite Chinese restaurant around the current location, by using the external content.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 4,
wherein the POI search option includes at least one of a preferred POI search option, a No Kids Zone exclusion option, or a No Pet Zone exclusion option (see at least Kim [0157]: “When the user utters “is there any restaurant around here?”, the dialogue system 100 may recognize the current location of the user and figure out that the user prefers the Chinese restaurant, from the long-term memory 143. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may recommend the list of user's favorite Chinese restaurant around the current location, by using the external content.”; Kim discloses at least a preferred POI search option).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
controlling the vehicle based on the preset information within the passenger profile in response the identification of the passenger (see at least Kim [0412]-[0413]: “In the information stored in the short-term memory 144, the persistent information, e.g., user's preference or orientation, or information which is used to acquire the persistent information, may be stored in the long-term memory 143. Based on the vehicle control and the external content request corresponding to the generated and output command, the user preference or the vehicle control history stored in the long-term memory 143 may be updated.”; [0124]: “As mentioned above, the dialogue system 100 may recognize the user's real intent and preemptively provide information corresponding to the intent by considering a content, which is not uttered by the user, based on pre-obtained information. Therefore, it may be possible to reduce the dialogue steps and time for providing the service desired by the user.”).
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 1. Kim also discloses a device that performs the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Kim discloses a memory and a processor (Kim [0074]) that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 2 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 3 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 4 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 5 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 6 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Penilla et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0152197 A1 (hereinafter Penilla).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all elements of the method according to claim 6 as explained above. Kim fails to expressly disclose the preset information including at least one of window control, seat control, temperature control, air conditioning control, lighting control, volume control, or media presets. However, Penilla teaches
wherein the preset information includes at least one of window control presets, seat control presets, temperature control presets, air conditioning control presets, lighting control presets, volume control presets, or media presets (see at least Penilla [0198]: “The learned settings can also be communicated to the user via notifications. Such as, “We noticed you like your truck temperature at 3 pm to be 60 degrees? Please confirm,” or “We noticed you like your car temperature at 8 am to be 75 degrees, this will be preset for you automatically,” or “We have detected your favorite settings, please login to your account to see settings we have programmed for you or make updates,” or other similar notifications via the vehicle or to any connected device over the Internet.”; Penilla discloses at least temperature control presets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Kim with the presets taught by Penilla with reasonable expectation of success. Penilla is directed towards the related field of customizing vehicle response to user voice input. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim with Penilla to customize a vehicle experience based on the user (see at least Penilla [0010]: “Broadly speaking, the processing defined herein enables the vehicle response to be tailored to respond to the user's voice input in a way that respects or understands the user's possible mood or possible state of mind…These additional contextual data points can be used to provide further customized vehicle response and/or recommendations to the user of the vehicle (i.e., driver and/or passengers).”).
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 7 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Nishio et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0006200 A1 (hereinafter Nishio).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Kim fails to expressly disclose the passenger profile including name, voice characteristics, or device information of the passenger. However, Nishio teaches
wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of name, voice characteristics, or device information of the passenger (see at least Nishio [0104]: “Then, in a case where the voice is input, the recognition unit 133 recognizes the utterer who has generated the voice and the attribute of the utterer, on the basis of a feature amount such as a sound pressure or a waveform of the voice. In this case, the recognition unit 133 can more accurately recognize the attribute of the utterer, by referring to the information of the user information storage unit 121 or the like in which the rule for defining the attribute in advance is held, together with the determination model.”; Nishio discloses at least voice characteristics),
and wherein identifying of the passenger includes: identifying the passenger using at least one of a connection state of a device of the passenger or utterances from the passenger or the driver based on at least one of the name, the voice characteristics, or the device information of the passenger within the passenger profile (see at least Nishio [0083]: “That is, the determination model identified by the model ID “M01” is a learned model that has learned a voice of the user who uses the vehicle 100 and is a model that outputs information used to specify the user (for example, score indicating possibility that voice is voice of user 10), in a case where the voice of the user is input.”; [0104]: “Furthermore, the recognition unit 133 may recognize the attributes of the plurality of utterers, on the basis of the composition information of each of the voices generated by the plurality of utterers. That is, the recognition unit 133 constantly acquires the voice generated in the vehicle 100, learns its feature, and generates the determination model. Then, in a case where the voice is input, the recognition unit 133 recognizes the utterer who has generated the voice and the attribute of the utterer, on the basis of a feature amount such as a sound pressure or a waveform of the voice.”; Nishio discloses at least identifying the passenger using utterances based on the voice characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Kim with the attribute information taught by Nishio with reasonable expectation of success. Nishio is directed towards the related field of executing a response based on voice recognition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim with Nishio to improve accuracy of voice recognition and determine an optimal response (see at least Nishio [0008]: “Therefore, the present disclosure proposes an information processing device, an information processing method, and an information processing program that can improve accuracy of voice recognition and return an optimal response to the recognized voice.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a device that performs the method of claim 8 as explained
above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Papp et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0397279 A1, directed towards presenting AI-generated POI information to a vehicle user.
Tasaki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0371372 A1, directed towards a vehicle dialogue service device.
Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0375469 A1, directed towards outputting a response based on voice recognition.
Jarosz et al., U.S. Patent No. 11455982 B2, directed towards using context of an utterance to determine an appropriate response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights