DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 02/13/2026, in which claims 1-16 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the drawings to overcome the drawing objections. Accordingly, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the claimed features “recite an integrated technological solution that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or via “pen and paper” for several distinct technical reasons.” Applicant further argues on page 8 of the remarks that “the claim is tethered to a physical context variable (the vehicle environment) and the execution of a passenger-specific service” and “because the claims recite a specific, hardware-integrated solution for vehicular control that depends on digital permission structures (the profile) and high-speed signal processing, they do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.” Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “amended claim 1 is directed to a specific technological improvement to the problem of managing multi-user interactions within a localized computing environment.” Applicant also argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that the claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea and the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended independent claims recite the limitations “determining a passenger profile corresponding to a passenger in a vehicle” and “determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the passenger profile” which are mental processes. For example, a human can identify a passenger and mentally determine a passenger profile through observing the passenger. A human can also mentally determine a response action based on the information obtained from a command and a passenger profile. For example, a human can observe a vehicle passenger is distracted and, in response to a passenger asking for restaurants, the human operator can determine a response action should be providing navigation directions to a restaurant. Although the claims recite “a response action,” the response action is not limited to vehicle control and includes providing search results to a user, such as through a display (see instant application [0088]-[0090], [0170]). Therefore, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The additional elements recited in the amended claims recite judicial exceptions that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a “practical application.” Regarding the additional limitation “obtaining, using a speech recognition system, recognition result information corresponding to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver,” this limitation recites data transmission and data processing that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “causing execution of the response action for providing a passenger-specific service,” this limitation recites mere display that is insignificant extra solution activity. As explained above, “a response action” includes a display because a response action includes providing search results to a user (see instant application [0088]-[0090], [0170]). The “wherein the passenger profile includes at least one of a vehicle control range, a points of interest (POI) search option, or preset information” limitation 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). In response to applicant’s arguments that the claims are directed towards a technological improvement, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept, as evidenced by the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that the cited references fail to describe or suggest the amended limitations of the claims. Applicant specifically argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that “Kim does not describe or suggest determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the determined passenger profile, where the recognition result information is obtained by a speech recognition system and corresponds to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Kim fails to disclose all limitations of the amended independent claims. Kim discloses obtaining recognition result information corresponding to a voice command using a speech recognition system because Kim discloses a speech recognizer that recognizes the input user’s speech and identifies the user’s intent in the utterance (Kim [0226]). Kim discloses that after the speech recognizer identifies an intent of the user’s utterance, a control command can be used to provide a service needed to the user (Kim [0239]-[0240]). Kim further discloses determining a response action through at least providing POI information to a user. More specifically, Kim discloses recommending a list of the user’s favorite restaurants (i.e., determining a response action) corresponding to a user’s utterance (i.e., voice command based on the recognition result information) and user data stored in memory (i.e., passenger profile) ( Kim [0155]-[0158]). Therefore, Kim discloses all elements of the amended independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
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 performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
determining a passenger profile corresponding to a passenger in a vehicle;
obtaining, using a speech recognition system, recognition result information corresponding to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver;
determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the passenger profile;
and causing execution of the response action for providing a passenger-specific service,
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 “determining a passenger profile corresponding to a passenger in a vehicle” step includes a human identifying a passenger through observation and mentally determining a passenger profile through observing the passenger. The “determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the passenger profile” limitation includes a human mentally determining a response action based on the information obtained from a command and a passenger profile. For example, a human can observe a vehicle passenger is distracted and, in response to a passenger asking for restaurants, the human operator can determine a response action should be providing navigation directions to a restaurant. 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 performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
determining a passenger profile corresponding to a passenger in a vehicle;
obtaining, using a speech recognition system, recognition result information corresponding to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver;
determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the passenger profile;
and causing execution of the response action for providing a passenger-specific service,
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 “obtaining, using a speech recognition system, recognition result information corresponding to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver,” this limitation recites data transmission and data processing that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “causing execution of the response action for providing a passenger-specific service,” 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 performed by at least one processor (Kim Fig. 1, Fig. 41-Fig. 43), the method comprising:
determining a passenger profile corresponding to a passenger in a vehicle (see at least Kim [0155]: “For example, the long-term memory 143 may determine that the persistence of the data such as position of interest (POI) information, e.g., family and friend telephone numbers and home or company, and user preferences for certain parameters is secured and then store the data therein.”; [0263]: “For example, the user's preference may be acquired by analyzing destination information that is stored for certain duration or the dialogue content, and the acquired user's preference may be stored in the long-term memory 143.”);
obtaining, using a speech recognition system, recognition result information corresponding to a voice command uttered by the passenger or a driver (see at least Kim [0226]: “The speech input processor 111 may include an speech recognizer 111a outputting an utterance in the text type by recognizing the input user's speech, a natural language understanding portion 111b identifying the user's intent contained in the utterance by applying natural language understanding technology to the user utterance, and a dialogue input manager 111c transmitting a result of the natural language understanding and the context information, to the dialogue manager 120.”; [0239]-[0240]: “The utterance in the form of text that is the recognition result of the speech recognizer 111a may be input to the natural language understanding portion 111b. The natural language understanding portion 111b may identify an intent of user's utterance included in an utterance language by applying the natural language understanding technology. Therefore, the user may input a control command through a natural dialogue, and the dialogue system 100 may also induce the input of the control command and provide a service needed the user via the dialogue.”);
determining a response action corresponding to the voice command based on the recognition result information and the passenger profile (see at least Kim [0155]-[0158]: “For example, the long-term memory 143 may determine that the persistence of the data such as position of interest (POI) information, e.g., family and friend telephone numbers and home or company, and user preferences for certain parameters is secured and then store the data therein. In contrast, when it is determined that the persistence of the data is not secured, the data may be stored in the short-term memory 144. For example, the current location of the user may be a temporary data and thus stored in the short-term memory 144 and the user's preference for the restaurant may be a persistent data which is available later and thus stored in the long-term memory 143. 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. In addition, the dialogue system 100 may preemptively provide service and information to the user using the data stored in the long-term memory 143 and the short-term memory 144.”);
and causing execution of the response action for providing a passenger-specific service (see at least Kim [0534]: “It may be possible to provide the service in accordance with a user's real intent or the most necessary service for a user by precisely recognizing a user's intent based on a variety of information such as dialogue with the user and vehicle state information, driving environment information, and user information during the vehicle drives.”; [0414]: “According to the above mentioned example, the dialogue system 100 may provide a service which is the most appropriate for a user, by considering a variety of situations occurring inside of the vehicle.”),
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 causing execution of 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 causing execution of 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 to determining the passenger profile corresponding to 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 identification data of the passenger (see at least Nishio [0078]: “The “user ID” is identification information used to identify a user of the vehicle 100.”),
wherein the identification data 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 the identification data of the passenger is used to: identify the passenger within the vehicle (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.”).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights