DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/14/2026. Claims 1, 4, and 5 were amended. Claims 1-5 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, 4, and 5 are independent and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 5/14/2026 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the claim objections raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objection of various claims is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art reject ions under 35 U.S.C 103, received have been fully considered.
Regarding the Applicant argument with respect to Sharifi, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. Although every claim limitation is mapped to the prior art, the references are not required to align perfectly with the instant application's entire disclosure. The rejection stands under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which evaluates obviousness based on the combined teachings of the references to a skilled artisan. Consequently, the Applicant’s attempt to attack the references individually is improper. Furthermore, the argument with respect to Gopalkrishna is moot since this action is not relied upon the said reference.
The Examiner maintains the rejection and finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive for the following reasons:
Improper Individual Attacks: The rejection is based on a combination of references under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Applicant cannot overcome this by attacking the references in isolation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Obviousness: The prior art teaches each claim limitation, establishing that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Selective Teaching: The mapping demonstrates how the prior art teaches the instant application's features; the rejection does not require the entire body of a cited reference to align with the Applicant’s disclosure.
MPEP 2141.01(a) Analogous and Non-analogous Art [R-01.2024] where it recites:” In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. .... When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1380, 2023 USPQ2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1007, 2023 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. While each claim limitation is mapped to specific features in the cited references, this does not require the prior art as a whole to perfectly mirror the Applicant’s disclosure. Furthermore, because the rejection is based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the test is whether the combination of references would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Therefore, the cited references cannot be attacked in isolation when the rejection relies on their combination.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. Hence, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is introduced for independent claims further replacing Gopalkrishna with Sungmin Ji (US20200047746A1).
Please see below for more detail including updated citations and obviousness rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi (US20250012587A1), and in further view of Sungmin JI (US20200047746A1)(herein " Ji").
Sharifi was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5 Sharifi teaches [A driving assistance device comprising a processor configured to: - claim 1], [A driving assistance method comprising: - claim 4], and [A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to execute a process comprising: - claim 5] (Sharifi, Par. 0011:” … The computing device includes one or more processors, and a computer-readable memory, which is optionally non-transitory, coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: (i) receive a query …”, and Par. 0054:” The vehicle computing device 150 includes one or more processor(s) 152 and a memory 153 storing computer-readable instructions executable by the processor(s) 152.”)
acquire a voice question [[about Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS)]] accepted from a driver driving the vehicle, [[the voice question inquiring whether the ADAS can be activated;]] recognize the voice question about the ADAS; and generate a voice response corresponding to the voice question [[about the ADAS]] using Large Language Models (LLM), (Sharifi, Par. 0056:” … a user requests navigation information in a query without previously initiating a navigation session. The user query [question] may be an audio query. ... The user may be a driver, … the example scenarios in FIGS. 2 and 3 include queries related to driving directions it will be understood … suitable mode of transportation including driving, ...”, and Par. 0077:”… generate the text of the response 204 by utilizing the language processing module 109a, and in certain aspects, a large language model (LLM) (e.g., language model for dialogue applications … Such an LLM may be conditioned/trained to generate the response text based on characteristics of the response, and/or the LLM may be trained ...”, and Par. 0038:” … the language processing module 109a may include an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine 109a1 that is configured to transcribe speech inputs from a user into sets of text. Further, the language processing module 109a may include a text-to-speech (TTS) engine 109a2 that is configured to convert text into audio outputs, such as audio responses, audio queries, navigation instructions, and/or other outputs for the user.”, and Par. 0007:”… the response may be an audio response …”).
Sharifi does not teach, however, Ji teaches acquire a vehicle state of a vehicle, including at least one of a speed of the vehicle, a state of the brake pedal of the vehicle, a state of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle, a state of the driver's seat belt, and a state of a door of the vehicle; (Ji, Par. 0013:” … The numerical value of the variable based on the change of the traveling status of the vehicle may include at least one of a numerical value indicating a traveling speed of the vehicle and a numerical value indicating a steering angle of the vehicle.”)
about ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems) (Ji, Par. 0002:” … more particularly to a technology that advances a control start time of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) of a vehicle by operating the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) based on driver awareness, as well as to increase a reference level for releasing an operation of the ADAS.”)
the voice question inquiring whether the ADAS can be activated; the response indicating whether the ADAS can be activated, based on the state of the vehicle. (Ji, Par. 0009:” … a detection sensor configured to acquire at least one position information of the object and speed information of the object, an input configured to receive a command for starting an operation of an ADAS of the vehicle, and a controller configured to receive the command for starting the operation of the ADAS of the vehicle, start operation of the ADAS when a traveling environment and traveling status of the vehicle satisfy a predefined condition, advance a warning start time based on the operation of the ADAS by a predetermined time after starting operation of the ADAS, and allow an operation release reference value for releasing the operation of the ADAS to be higher than a predetermined value.”)
Ji is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharifi further in view of Ji to acquire a vehicle state of a vehicle, including at least one of a speed of the vehicle, a state of the brake pedal of the vehicle, a state of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle, a state of the driver's seat belt, and a state of a door of the vehicle; the voice question inquiring whether the ADAS can be activated; the response indicating whether the ADAS can be activated, based on the state of the vehicle. Motivation to do so would allow user to input various commands associated with the vehicle (Ji, Par. 0053).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, and Gopalkrishna, and in further view of D'Orazio et al. (US20220073098A1)(herein " D'Orazio").
D'Orazio was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 2, Sharifi, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 1.
Sharifi, as modified above, further teaches recognize the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated; and (Sharifi, Par. 0056:” … a user requests navigation information in a query without previously initiating a navigation session. The user query [question] may be an audio query. ... The user may be a driver, … the example scenarios in FIGS. 2 and 3 include queries related to driving directions it will be understood … suitable mode of transportation including driving, ...”).
the processor is configured to generate the voice response explaining an operation of the driver required to activate the function of the ADAS when it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated and the speed of the vehicle is greater than zero. (Sharifi, Par. 0038:” … the language processing module 109a may include a text-to-speech (TTS) engine 109a2 that is configured to convert text into audio outputs, such as audio responses, audio queries, navigation instructions, and/or other outputs for the user.”, and Par. 0007:”… the response may be an audio response …”). Note: Condition under which function of ADAS can be activated when the vehicle speed is greater than zero is taught by D'Orazio.
generate the voice response corresponding to the voice question asking [[whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated based on the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated,]] (Sharifi, Par. 0056:” … The user query [question] may be an audio query. ... The user may be a driver, … the example scenarios in FIGS. 2 and 3 include queries related to driving directions it will be understood … suitable mode of transportation including driving, ...”, and Par. 0077:”… generate the text of the response 204...”, and Par. 0038:” … the language processing module 109a may include an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine 109a1 that is configured to transcribe speech inputs from a user into sets of text. Further, the language processing module 109a may include a text-to-speech (TTS) engine 109a2 that is configured to convert text into audio outputs, such as audio responses, audio queries, navigation instructions, and/or other outputs for the user.”, and Par. 0007:”… the response may be an audio response …”).
Sharifi, as modified above, does not teach, however, D'Orazio teaches acquire the voice question accepted from the driver when speed of the vehicle is greater than zero and asking whether it is a situation in which a function of the ADAS, which cannot be activated when the speed of the vehicle is less than a threshold, can be activated, information showing a state of the vehicle when the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated is accepted from the driver, location information of the vehicle when the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated is accepted from the driver, and information describing a condition under which the function of the ADAS can be activated; (D'Orazio, Par. 0016:” … processor is provided that includes performing an advanced driving assistance algorithm, receiving [acquire] a request for a lane change, generating a lane change navigational route in response to the request for a lane change, a vehicle location and a map data, calculating a predicted lateral acceleration in response to the navigational route, and executing a lane change in response to the lane change navigational route in response to the predicted lateral acceleration being less than a lateral acceleration threshold.”, and Par. 0045:” … the processor 220 is further operative to receive a lane change request from a vehicle operator [driver of the vehicle] via the user interface 253 ... The processor 220 is then operative to receive a map data from the memory 250, location data from the GPS 245 and is operative to calculate a navigational route for the host vehicle to execute the lane change operation from a current lane to a destination lane. … the navigational route may include a start point in the original lane, an ending point in the destination lane and may further include …. In addition, the processor 220 is operative to calculate a PLA based on the upcoming road characteristics. The processor 220 is then operative to compare the PLA to a lateral acceleration threshold. If the PLA does not exceed the lateral acceleration threshold, the processor 220 is then operative to generate control signals to perform the lane change operation. If the PLA does exceed the lateral acceleration threshold, the processor 220 may deny the lane change operation and provide an alert to the vehicle operator indicating the denial of the lane change.”, and Par. 0052:”… compare 380 the calculated PLAs to a lateral acceleration threshold. The lateral acceleration threshold may be a predetermined lateral acceleration threshold at which vehicle movement may be uncomfortable to a vehicle occupant or may be detrimental to vehicle performance and stability. If the calculated PLAs exceed the threshold, the method may then be operative to deny 390 the lane change operation and not perform the lane change maneuver. In addition, the method may be operative to provide a warning or alert to a vehicle operator indicative of the denial of the lane change operation.”) Note: lane change request, and navigational route request, reads on speed of the vehicle is greater than zero. PLA signifies when the lane change is not safe to perform by comparing the threshold PLA to the calculated PLA. This reads on the ADAS can/cannot be activated by comparing the vehicle speed with the threshold speed.
[[generate the voice response corresponding to the voice question asking]] whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated based on the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated, (D'Orazio, Par. 0016:” … processor is provided that includes performing an advanced driving assistance algorithm, receiving [acquire] a request for a lane change, generating a lane change navigational route in response to the request for a lane change, ...”, and Par. 0045:” … the processor 220 is further operative to receive a lane change request from a vehicle operator [driver of the vehicle] via the user interface 253 …. the processor 220 is operative to calculate a PLA based on the upcoming road characteristics. The processor 220 is then operative to compare the PLA to a lateral acceleration threshold. If the PLA does not exceed the lateral acceleration threshold, the processor 220 is then operative to generate control signals to perform[can be activated] the lane change operation. If the PLA does exceed the lateral acceleration threshold, the processor 220 may deny the lane change operation and provide an alert to the vehicle operator indicating the denial [cannot be activated] of the lane change.”) Note: lane change request reads on asking whether the ADAS can be activated.
the information showing a state of the vehicle, the location information of the vehicle, and the information describing the condition under which the function of the ADAS can be activated when the speed of the vehicle is greater than zero, (D'Orazio, Par. 0026:” … the processor being further operative to generate a warning signal in response to the predicted lateral acceleration exceeding a lateral acceleration threshold, and a display for displaying a denial of lane change to a vehicle operator in response to the warning signal.”) Note displaying condition under which the function of ADAS (i.e. lane change) can be activated is a matter of design choice since denying such a condition is being displayed. Furthermore, lane change implies the speed of the vehicle is greater than zero.
D'Orazio is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharifi, as modified above, further in view of D'Orazio to acquire the voice question accepted from the driver when speed of the vehicle is greater than zero and asking whether it is a situation in which a function of the ADAS, which cannot be activated when the speed of the vehicle is less than a threshold, can be activated, information showing a state of the vehicle when the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated is accepted from the driver, location information of the vehicle when the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated is accepted from the driver, and information describing a condition under which the function of the ADAS can be activated; whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated based on the voice question asking whether it is the situation in which the function of the ADAS can be activated, the information showing a state of the vehicle, the location information of the vehicle, and the information describing the condition under which the function of the ADAS can be activated when the speed of the vehicle is greater than zero. Motivation to do so would improve the safety of the vehicle operations while performing an ADAS operation (D'Orazio, Par. 0039).
Regarding claim 3, Sharifi, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 1.
Sharifi, as modified above, does not teach, however, D'Orazio teaches wherein the function of the ADAS includes a lane change assist, (D'Orazio, Par. 0005:”… a method and apparatus for lane change on demand operation in an ADAS equipped motor vehicle.”, and Par. 0041:” … illustrating an exemplary implementation of a system 200 for predictive lateral acceleration for a lane change on demand operation in an ADAS equipped motor vehicle is shown.”)
the processor is configured to generate the voice response explaining a range of a speed of the vehicle where the lane change assist can be activated when the processor acquires the voice question about the range of the speed of the vehicle where the lane change assist can be activated accepted from the driver driving the vehicle. (D'Orazio, Par. 0016:” … processor is provided that includes performing an advanced driving assistance algorithm, receiving a request for a lane change, generating a lane change navigational route in response to the request for a lane change, a vehicle location and a map data, calculating a predicted lateral acceleration in response to the navigational route, and executing a lane change in response to the lane change navigational route in response to the predicted lateral acceleration being less than a lateral acceleration threshold.”, and Par. 0026:”… an advanced driver assistance system for controlling a vehicle includes an input device for receiving a request for a lane change, a processor operative to generate a lane change navigational route in response to a map data, a current vehicle location, and the request for the lane change, the processor being further operative to determine a predicted lateral acceleration at a point along the lane change navigational route, the processor being further operative to generate a warning signal in response to the predicted lateral acceleration exceeding a lateral acceleration threshold, and a display for displaying a denial of lane change to a vehicle operator in response to the warning signal.”, and Par. 0038:”… method are operative to receive a request for LCoD, such as a right side LCoD, from a vehicle operator or from an ADAS controller.”, and Par. 0048:” … determine 330 if a lane change request has been received. The lane change request may be initiated by a vehicle operator request, such as activation of a turn signal or voice command or may be initiated by a an ADAS controller in response to a determination by an assisted driving algorithm. In an exemplary embodiment, the lane change request may be generated by a vehicle operator activating a turn signal switch during the ADAS operation. “) Note: All the relevant calculations are performed as shown above which predict a safe lane change condition (one of which is speed of the vehicle), and lane change is initiated if it is considered safe. At the same time display is used to output such result. Producing a voice response by way of explaining the mentioned results to the driver such as safe speed range can be provided via Sharifi’s teaching of TTS which is a design choice.
D'Orazio is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharifi, as modified above, further in view of D'Orazio to wherein the function of the ADAS includes a lane change assist, the processor is configured to generate the voice response explaining a range of a speed of the vehicle where the lane change assist can be activated when the processor acquires the voice question about the range of the speed of the vehicle where the lane change assist can be activated accepted from the driver driving the vehicle. Motivation to do so would improve the safety of the vehicle operations while performing an ADAS operation (D'Orazio, Par. 0039).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Xu (US20240095460A1) teaches in Par. ABS:” … For instance, the systems and methods may receive text data representing speech, such as a question associated with a vehicle or other machine type. The systems and methods then use a retrieval system(s) to retrieve a question/answer pair(s) associated with the text data and/or contextual information associated with the text data. In some examples, the contextual information is associated with a knowledge base associated with or corresponding to the vehicle.”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E. whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights