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 .
Claims Filed: 07-22-2026
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 – 4, and 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/766,618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses A vehicle audio system, comprising: at least one memory;
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the vehicle audio system in a vehicle to: detect a location of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity;
detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located closer;
based on whether the first person or the second person
Claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call;
to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call;
at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device
helm teaches of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call; to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call; at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device (In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat and determines who is speaking based on who is actively speaking. See para 16, 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 (co-pending) of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call; to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call; at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device as taught by Helm. This modification would improve cost effectiveness, a microphone can be directed toward a group of seats rather than a single seat as suggest by Helm (para 16).
Regarding claim 2, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to mute the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See Helm, para 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See Helm, para 18-19).
Regarding claim 4, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, (Helm) para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, (helm) para 21).
Regarding claim 8, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to further adjust at least one of the audio input from the first microphone device or the second microphone device in response to a change in the audio call (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, (Helm) para 20. If the audio input changes from the first mic to the second mic, then the current speaker must cease talking for the mics to switch to the next user, (Helm) para 20).
Claims 5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1, in further view of Gupta, U.S. Publication 202400411808 A1.
Regarding claim 5, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call.
Claim 5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach use a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta teaches use a machine learning model trained on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 5 (co-pending) use a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Gupta. This modification would improve help the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation as suggest by Gupta (see para 131)
Claims 6 -7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of co-pending Application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1, in further view of Ganguly, U.S. Patent 1256469 B1.
Regarding claim 6, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system
Claim 6 of the instant application, claim 5 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach to use voice recognition, at least one of
Ganguly teaches to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. [Ganguly] in Col 26 line 28-31, Col 54 line 15-18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 (co-pending) to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly. This modification would improve determine an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user as suggest by Ganguly (Col 54 line 21-23).
Regarding claim 7, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, in further view of Ganguly disclose voice recognition (Fig 13 [1308], an vision component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. In Ganguly, Col 52 line 57-60).
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Helm teaches A vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]), comprising: at least one memory (Fig 1 [104]); and at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the vehicle audio system in a vehicle to:
detect a location (Fig 1 [124]) of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) configured to receive audio input for an audio call (In Fig 1, the computing device makes up the core of the vehicle audio system, which houses the memory and processor component coupled together through a bus connection, see para 12. In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is a occupant present. See para 16);
detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located closer to a second microphone device (Fig 1 [122B]) than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near the passenger’s seat, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16);
and adjust the audio input received by at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device based on whether the first person or the second person is actively speaking (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking, see para 18).
Helm does not explicitly teach determine a subject that is active in the vehicle of the audio call;
Nanri discloses determine a subject that is active in the vehicle of the audio call (In Fig 2, the storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the conversation generator (Fig 2 [20]) to a vehicles audio system to achieve predictable results. Note: audio info inside the vehicle is collected by the audio input unit (Fig 1 [11]) using, for Ex, a sound collection device such as a microphone installed in the interior of the vehicle [para 15]. Note 2: the audio info includes conversation between multiple users and multiple users & a conversation device that took place inside the vehicle [para 16])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine a subject that is active in the vehicle as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri.
Helm does not explicitly teach and based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call
Okayasu discloses based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Regarding claim 2, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to mute the first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 4, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to
Helm does not explicitly teach determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant
Okayasu discloses determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Helm does not explicitly teach the subject of the audio call based on call history
Nanri discloses the subject of the audio call based on call history (In Fig 2, a user’s conversation history is a history of topics that the user has had in conversations with other users and conversation devices in the past. The storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. The history may include at least one of the user's conversation history, the user's movement history, the user's shopping history, and the user's line of sight information [para 32]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the call history to the user history database (Fig 1 [23]) that holds the user’s conversation history, which is acquired by the topic identifying unit (Fig 1 [23]), see para 33. As a result, the outcome would have yielded predictable results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the subject of the audio call based on call history as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri.
Regarding claim 17, Helm teaches A system, comprising: one or more microphone devices (Fig 2 [122A-D]) in a vehicle and configured to receive audio input for an audio call (In para 6, the first and second microphone receive audio input);
and a processor (Fig 1 [104]) configured to implement an audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) to:
detect a location of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) of the one or more microphone devices (The audio call manager is the computing device, which regulates different components within the vehicle, see para 12. In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is a occupant present. See para 16);
detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located in proximity of a second microphone device of the one or more microphone devices that is located closer to the second person than the first person (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near each of the passengers’ seats, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16. There are seat sensors, with weighted sensor, to help assess if an occupant is sitting near a microphone, para 17);
and adjust at least one of the audio input from the first microphone device or the second microphone device based on whether the first person or the second person is actively speaking during the audio call (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Helm does not explicitly teach determine a subject that is active in the vehicle of the audio call;
Nanri discloses determine a subject that is active in the vehicle of the audio call (In Fig 2, the storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the conversation generator (Fig 2 [20]) to a vehicles audio system to achieve predictable results. Note: audio info inside the vehicle is collected by the audio input unit (Fig 1 [11]) using, for Ex, a sound collection device such as a microphone installed in the interior of the vehicle [para 15]. Note 2: the audio info includes conversation between multiple users and multiple users & a conversation device that took place inside the vehicle [para 16]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine a subject that is active in the vehicle as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri
Helm does not explicitly teach and based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call
Okayasu discloses based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Regarding claim 18, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) is configured to mute the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 19, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) is configured to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 20, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100] is configured to further adjust the audio input for at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device in response to a change in the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, see para 21).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1, in further view of Gupta (US Publication) 20240411808 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to.
Helm does not explicitly teach to use a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta discloses to use a machine learning model trained (Fig 3B [300]) on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of to use a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been help the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation. In para 131, in Gupta.
Helm does not explicitly teach determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call
Okayasu discloses determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the audio call as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1, in further view of Ganguly (US Patent) 12456469 B1.
Regarding claim 6, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system
Helm does not explicitly teach to use voice recognition
Ganguly discloses to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. See Col 26 line 28-31, Col 54 line 15-18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining scores indicating whether speech in the audio data 211 originated from particular users. In Ganguly, see Col 54 line 21-23
Regarding claim 7, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to use facial recognition to detect at least one of the locations of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach to use facial recognition
Ganguly discloses to use facial recognition (Fig 13 [1308], a vision component, which is a part of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors [camera, Fig 3A (312, 316)] or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. See para 267. See Fig 5B, para 151 for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use facial recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user. In Ganguly, Col 52 line 57-60
Claims 9-12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1, in further view of Chandak (US Publication) 20260003563 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Helm teaches A method, comprising: detecting a location (Fig 1 [124]) of a first person in a vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) to receive audio input from the first person for an audio call (In Fig 1, the computing device makes up the core of the vehicle audio system, which houses the memory and processor component coupled together through a bus connection, see para 12. In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is a occupant present. See para 16);
detecting an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located in proximity of a second microphone device (Fig 1 [122B]) that is located closer to the second person than the first person to receive audio input from the second person for the audio call (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near the passenger’s seat, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16);
adjusting the audio input for at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking, see para 18);
based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the subject of the conversation of the audio call.
Helm does not explicitly teach determining a subject of [[a]] the conversation of the audio call;
Nanri discloses determining a subject of [[a]] the conversation of the audio call (In Fig 2, the storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the conversation generator (Fig 2 [20]) to a vehicles audio system to achieve predictable results. Note: audio info inside the vehicle is collected by the audio input unit (Fig 1 [11]) using, for Ex, a sound collection device such as a microphone installed in the interior of the vehicle [para 15]. Note 2: the audio info includes conversation between multiple users and multiple users & a conversation device that took place inside the vehicle [para 16]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine a subject that is active in the vehicle as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri.
Helm does not explicitly teach based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call
Okayasu discloses based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Helm does not explicitly teach and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device or a second speaker device
Chandak discloses and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device (Fig 4 [11g]) or a second speaker device (Fig 4 [11g], the system will adjust the playback volume based on the priority level. The volume of a lower priority will lower and/or the volume will increase for a higher priority. See para 74)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device or a second speaker device as taught by Chandak in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been describe, indicate or otherwise teach of location/presence of pedestrians, location/presence of other vehicles, location/presence of emergency vehicles, location/presence of law enforcement, current and/or forecasted weather etc. In para 70, in Chandak
Regarding claim 10, Helm teaches further comprising muting the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the microphone(1st) nearest the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Helm teaches further comprising detecting when the first person begins actively speaking and un-muting the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20.
Regarding claim 12, Helm does not explicitly teach further comprising determining whether the first person or the second person is relevant
Okayasu discloses further comprising determining whether the first person or the second person is relevant (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of further comprising determining whether the first person or the second person is relevant as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Helm does not explicitly teach to the subject of the conversation of the audio call based on call history.
Nanri discloses to the subject of the conversation of the audio call based on call history (In Fig 2, a user’s conversation history is a history of topics that the user has had in conversations with other users and conversation devices in the past. The storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the conversation generator (Fig 2 [20]) to a vehicles audio system to achieve predictable results. Note: audio info inside the vehicle is collected by the audio input unit (Fig 1 [11]) using, for Ex, a sound collection device such as a microphone installed in the interior of the vehicle [para 15]. Note 2: the audio info includes conversation between multiple users and multiple users & a conversation device that took place inside the vehicle [para 16]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of to the subject of the conversation of the audio call based on call history as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri.
Regarding claim 16, Helm teaches further comprising adjusting the audio input from at least one of the first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) or the second microphone device (Fig 2 [122B]) in response to a change in the audio call (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. If the audio input changes from the first mic to the second mic, then the current speaker must cease talking for the mics to switch to the next user, see para 20).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1, in further view of Chandak (US Publication) 20260003563 A1, in further view of Gupta (US Publication) 20240411808 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Helm does not explicitly teach using a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta discloses using a machine learning model trained (Fig 3B [300]) on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of using a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been help the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation. In para 131, in Gupta.
Helm does not explicitly teach whether the first person or the second person is relevant.
Okayasu discloses based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (In Fig 2, the speech direction unit (Fig 1 [17]) identifies a direction of a voice that is picked up by a microphone [19]; via a beamforming process of the voice provided from two microphones [19A, 19B], for changing the directivity [para 32]. In Fig 3, the in-vehicle apparatus (Fig 1 [1]), in S9, determines whether the terminal (Fig 1 [2]) is used to pick up the incoming call [para 58]; if (YES), in S11, determines whether the occupant is speaking into the terminal [2]. Depending on direction of the voice or microphone used, the apparatus in S12 can preform a voice transfer to the have terminal [2] control the call to allow a private call [para 59]. In para 64, if not linked with driver 3A, the contents will not be disclosed to the driver or to tother occupants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of based on whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call as taught by Okayasu in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to determine that the driver is using his/her own portable communication terminal and is not the passenger's portable communication terminal. In para 13, in Okayasu.
Helm does not explicitly teach determine the subject of the conversation of the audio call
Nanri discloses determine the subject of the conversation of the audio call (In Fig 2, the storage unit [22] uses, for example, a topic model of natural language processing for the voice information in the vehicle interior inputted to the voice input unit [11] to extract topics of conversation based on the appearance frequency of keywords in the conversation [para 28]. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize through routine experimentation by the designer to apply the conversation generator (Fig 2 [20]) to a vehicles audio system to achieve predictable results. Note: audio info inside the vehicle is collected by the audio input unit (Fig 1 [11]) using, for Ex, a sound collection device such as a microphone installed in the interior of the vehicle [para 15]. Note 2: the audio info includes conversation between multiple users and multiple users & a conversation device that took place inside the vehicle [para 16]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determine the subject of the conversation of the audio call as taught by Nanri in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been to encourage the driver to participate more actively in the conversation and will prevent the driver from falling asleep. In para 76, in Nanri.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US Publication) 20160080861 A1 in view of Nanri (JP Publication) 2024030645 A, in further view of Okayasu (US Publication) 20130116012 A1, in further view of Chandak (US Publication) 20260003563 A1, in further view of Ganguly (US Patent) 12456469 B1.
Regarding claim 14, Helm teaches further comprising using voice recognition to detect (Fig 2 [124], para 14, seat sensors to see if seat is occupied) at least one of the location of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach using voice recognition
Ganguly discloses to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a part of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. See para 151, 273
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining scores indicating whether speech in the audio data 211 originated from particular users. In Ganguly, see para 274.
Regarding claim 15, Helm teaches further comprising using facial recognition to detect (Fig 2 [124], para 14, seat sensors to see if seat is occupied) at least one of the location of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach using facial recognition
Ganguly discloses to use facial recognition (Fig 13 [1308], an vision component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors [camera, Fig 3A (312, 316)] or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. See para 267. See Fig 5B, para 151 for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use facial recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determine an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user. In Ganguly, see para 267
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 9, 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose the amendedlimitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Examiner agrees that the previously appliedcombination does not disclose the amended limitations. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection has been entered based on Helm in view of Nanri and Okayasu. Please see earlier rejection above.
Applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose the amendedlimitations of independent claims 4. Examiner agrees that the previously appliedcombination does not disclose the amended limitations. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection has been entered based on Helm in view of Nanri and Okayasu. Please see earlier rejection above.
Since claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are dependent upon claims 1, 9, and 17, which are rejected due to the new ground of rejection. The rejection with respect mentioned claims stand.
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 MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights