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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 04/27/26 regarding application 18/785,782, in which claims 1 and 7 were amended, claims 4 and 10 were cancelled, and new claims 13-14 were added. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-7 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception and that even if they do involve mental processes, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In response, the examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to a mental process. Applicant argues “This is an improvement over conventional technology and covers a tangible device that is far from a mental process. For example, (i) controlling the entity provided in a vehicle to operate according to the action and (ii) outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action cannot be practically performed in a human mind. Rather, it is a real-world application of voice command execution technology that dynamically adjusts control authority based on occupant seat positions. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Prong One.” However, the examiner contends that the limitation of “controlling the entity according to the action, in response to the determined control authority, wherein determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “controlling the entity according to the action, in response to the determined control authority, wherein determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a command (e.g. “turn off the radio”), determining the person who spoke the command was in a seat position of authority and has control authority over the radio, and turning off the radio in response to that determination, and further mentally identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list written on a piece of paper, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, by writing down on a sheet of paper and holding up for display, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and listening for approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position. The examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Prong One.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because amended claim 1 solves a particular technological problem of conventional voice control in automotive settings. In response, the examiner notes that the specific language of the claims, which while amended now mention “a vehicle” do not particularly mention any automotive settings. In other words, the claims as drafted are not specific enough to realize the technical solutions described in Applicant’s specification. Rather, the claims as drafted are directed to an abstract idea of determining control authority for voice commands, and limiting the abstract idea to a particular environment of a vehicle does not realize the technical solutions described in Applicant’s specification.
Applicant further argues on page 7 that (i) identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity, (ii) outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and (iii) receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position are not well-understood, routine, or conventional operations. Initially, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “display” or “speaker” can include non-electronic displays and speakers, e.g. a visual display on a sheet of paper or speech spoken by a human speaker. The additional elements in the claims (i.e. “computer”) in the preamble is certainly a generic computer which performs well-understood, routine, or conventional operations, and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections based on Endo, and the 103 rejections based on Endo, Gopinath, and Fage have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection based in part on the newly discovered references to Melson et al. (US 20180354433) and Fong-Jones (US 8656465), the former of which is considered to correspond to the newly introduced subject matter in amended independent claims 1 and 7 which was not found in the previous language of now-cancelled dependent claims 4 and 10, and the latter additionally corresponding to the subject matter of newly added claims 13-14. The new grounds for rejection based in part on Melson and Fong-Jones are therefore necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command; identifying an entity and an action from the voice command; determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant; and controlling the entity according to the action, in response to the determined control authority”.
The limitation of identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command.
Similarly, the limitation of “identifying an entity and an action from the voice command”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying an entity and an action from the voice command” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying an entity and an action from the voice command.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant.
Similarly, the limitation of “controlling the entity provided in a vehicle to operate according to the action, in response to the determined control authority, wherein determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “controlling the entity provided in a vehicle to operate according to the action, in response to the determined control authority, wherein determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a command (e.g. “turn off the vehicle radio”), determining the person who spoke the command was in a seat position of authority and has control authority over the radio, and turning off the radio in response to that determination, and further mentally identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list written on a piece of paper, another seat position having control authority over the entity, outputting, by writing down on a sheet of paper and holding up for display, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and listening for approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – “computer-implemented” in the preamble. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general purpose computer) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the identifying, identifying, determining, and controlling amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of performing a voice command based on control authority of a seat position, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 merely recite additional steps for performing a voice command based on control authority of a seat position, all of which could be performed mentally and by carrying out actions manually, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “identifying the seat position of the occupant includes identifying the seat position of the occupant based on at least one of a sensor, a microphone activation button, or a signal strength of a microphone” which could be performed by mentally visually identifying the seat position of the occupant based on using the eyes as a sensor.
Claim 3 recites “determining the control authority includes determining whether the entity is included in an entity list that stores one or more controllable entities at the seat position of the occupant” which could be performed by mentally determining whether the entity is included in an entity list that stores one or more controllable entities at the seat position of the occupant by visually checking a paper list.
Claim 5 recites “determining the control authority further includes: based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position, granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command” which could be performed by mentally observing that no other occupancy is detected at the another seat position, and mentally granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command.
Claim 6 recites “determining the control authority further includes determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control history over the entity” which could be performed by visually checking a paper control history and mentally determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control history over the entity.
Claim 13 recites “the determining the control authority further comprises identifying a history of approving the granting of the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant, and wherein the controlling the entity comprises: controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists” which could be performed mentally remembering whether a user has previously granted the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant, and if so, controlling the entity according to the action without again asking for approval.
In sum, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is directed to a device that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set for the above with respect to claim 1. While claim 7 recites generic computer components (“at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions” and “at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions”), such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions and a generic memory storing them) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 depend from claim 7, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 7, and correspond to the subject matter discussed above with regard to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 7, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 above.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2021028650A) in view of Melson et al. (US 20180354433).
Consider claim 1, Endo discloses a computer-implemented method for executing a voice command based on seat position control authority (controlling whether or not an operation is possible according to a seat position of a speaker when accepting a command, Abstract), the method comprising:
identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command (determining the speaker’s seat position, Abstract);
identifying an entity and an action from the voice command (a voice command to e.g. release the trunk, page 2, Fig. 1);
determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant (determining command authority for the seat position of the speaker, page 2, Fig. 1); and
controlling the entity provided in a vehicle to operate according to the action, in response to the determined control authority (executing the command in the vehicle or not according to the seat position command authority, page 2);
wherein determining the control authority is based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list (e.g. checking whether the operation to be controlled by the voice command is in a list of commands for driver’s seat, or list of commands for passenger’s seat, page 2).
Endo does not specifically mention identifying, based on a determination, another seat position having control authority over the entity; outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position.
Melson discloses identifying, based on a determination, another seat position having control authority over the entity (determining whether the command requires driver approval or not, e.g. determining that passenger climate control settings do not, but determining that operation of the IVI control system requires driver approval, [0036-0039]); outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action (the driver is asked for approval of the control request by audible of visual message or notification, [0037]), and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position (driver response “Yes” or “Approved”, or touches a “Approve” or “OK” button on display screen, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo by identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list as in Endo, another seat position having control authority over the entity as in Melson; outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position as in Melson in order to divide up control of the many functions provided by modern vehicles between driver and passenger in a way that minimizes driver distractions while allowing passengers to control appropriate functions of the vehicle, as suggested by Melson ([0002], [0003], [0040]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of improved vehicle safety. The references cited are analogous art in the same field of vehicle control.
Consider claim 7, Endo discloses a device for executing a voice command based on seat position control authority (device for controlling whether or not an operation is possible according to a seat position of a speaker when accepting a command, page 2), the device comprising:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions (memory, page 2); and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform operations (execution unit executes program stored in memory, page 2) comprising:
identifying a seat position of an occupant who has uttered a voice command (determining the speaker’s seat position, Abstract);
identifying an entity and an action from the voice command (a voice command to e.g. release the trunk, page 2, Fig. 1);
determining a control authority assigned to the seat position of the occupant (determining command authority for the seat position of the speaker, page 2, Fig. 1); and
controlling the entity provided in a vehicle according to the action, in response to the determined control authority (executing the command or not according to the seat position command authority, page 2).
Endo does not specifically mention identifying, based on a determination, another seat position having control authority over the entity; outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position.
Melson discloses identifying, based on a determination, another seat position having control authority over the entity (determining whether the command requires driver approval or not, e.g. determining that passenger climate control settings do not, but determining that operation of the IVI control system requires driver approval, [0036-0039]); outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action (the driver is asked for approval of the control request by audible of visual message or notification, [0037]), and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position (driver response “Yes” or “Approved”, or touches a “Approve” or “OK” button on display screen, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo by identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in an entity list as in Endo, another seat position having control authority over the entity as in Melson; outputting, via a display or speaker, a request to another occupant at the another seat position for granting the control authority over the entity and the action, and receiving approval for the entity and the action from the another occupant at the another seat position as in Melson for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Endo discloses identifying the seat position of the occupant includes identifying the seat position of the occupant based on at least one of a sensor, a microphone activation button, or a signal strength of a microphone (determining seating position of the speaker due to a phase difference of voices, i.e. time differences in signal strength, page 2).
Consider claim 3, Endo discloses determining the control authority includes determining whether the entity is included in an entity list that stores one or more controllable entities at the seat position of the occupant (list of commands with authority information by speech position for entities such as engine, cruise control, reading light, door, trunk, air conditioner, etc., page 2).
Consider claim 8, Endo discloses identifying the seat position of the occupant includes identifying the seat position of the occupant based on at least one of a sensor, a microphone activation button, or a signal strength of a microphone (determining seating position of the speaker due to a phase difference of voices, i.e. time differences in signal strength, page 2).
Consider claim 9, Endo discloses determining the control authority includes determining whether the entity is included in an entity list that stores one or more controllable entities at the seat position of the occupant (list of commands with authority information by speech position for entities such as engine, cruise control, reading light, door, trunk, air conditioner, etc., page 2).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2021028650A) in view of Melson et al. (US 20180354433), in further view of Gopinath (US 20160165031).
Consider claim 5, Endo discloses determining the control authority further includes: granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command (performing the command when the authority is granted for the speaker’s seat and the device being controlled, page 2).
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position.
Gopinath discloses based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position (determination that the driver is the only occupant in the vehicle, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson such that based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position as in Gopinath, granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command as in Endo in order to improve adaptability to the vehicle context, as suggested by Gopinath ([0003]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of allowing a passenger to receive a call, as suggested by Gopinath ([0016]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of voice commands (Gopinath, [0022]).
Consider claim 11, Endo discloses determining the control authority comprises granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command (performing the command when the authority is granted for the speaker’s seat and the device being controlled, page 2).
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position.
Gopinath discloses based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position (determination that the driver is the only occupant in the vehicle, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson such that based on no other occupancy being detected at the another seat position as in Gopinath, granting the control authority to the seat position of the occupant who has uttered the voice command as in Endo for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2021028650A) in view of Melson et al. (US 20180354433), in further view of Fage (US 20230252979).
Consider claim 6, Endo discloses determining the control authority further includes determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control over the entity (determining command authority for the seat position of the speaker, page 2, Fig. 1).
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention a control history.
Fage discloses a control history (history of user-issued commands, [0253]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson by determining the control authority further includes determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control over the entity, as in Endo, by considering the control history of Fage, in order to provide a voice command gatekeeping function, as suggested by Fage ([0225]), predictably improving the user experience, as suggested by Fage ([0025]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of voice commands.
Consider claim 12, Endo discloses determining the control authority further includes determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control over the entity (determining command authority for the seat position of the speaker, page 2, Fig. 1).
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention a control history.
Fage discloses a control history (history of user-issued commands, [0253]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson by determining the control authority further includes determining the control authority based on whether the seat position of the occupant has a control over the entity, as in Endo, by considering the control history of Fage, for reasons similar to those for claim 6.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2021028650A) in view of Melson et al. (US 20180354433), in further view of Fong-Jones (US 8656465).
Consider claim 13, Endo does not, but Melson discloses wherein the determining the control authority further comprises approving the granting of the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant (determining the command from the passenger requires driver approval, and so the driver is asked for approval of the control request by audible of visual message or notification, and the driver approves the granting of authority, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo such that the determining the control authority further comprises approving the granting of the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention wherein the controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists.
Fong-Jones discloses identifying a history of approving the granting of the control authority (determining whether the user provided a previous authorization decision by querying an ACL or datastore, Col 14 lines 5-17, the Access Control List (ACL) granting authority of applications to access resources such as files, contact lists, etc., Col 4 lines 32-38); wherein the controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists (if the user previously allowed application to access the requested resource, the manager module sends a message ot permission module that allows application access to the requested resource without further prompting the user, Col 14 lines 13-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson such that controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists in order to avoid unnecessary extra user interaction, as suggested by Fong-Jones (Col 4 lines 15-26). Doing so would predictably reduce driver distractions, a goal identified by Melson ([0003]), by reducing redundant permissions requests. The cited references are analogous art in the field of permissions.
Consider claim 14, Endo does not, but Melson discloses wherein the determining the control authority further comprises approving the granting of the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant (determining the command from the passenger requires driver approval, and so the driver is asked for approval of the control request by audible of visual message or notification, and the driver approves the granting of authority, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo such that the determining the control authority further comprises approving the granting of the control authority over the entity at the seat position of the occupant from the another occupant for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Endo and Melson do not specifically mention wherein the controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists.
Fong-Jones discloses identifying a history of approving the granting of the control authority (determining whether the user provided a previous authorization decision by querying an ACL or datastore, Col 14 lines 5-17, the Access Control List (ACL) granting authority of applications to access resources such as files, contact lists, etc., Col 4 lines 32-38); wherein the controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists (if the user previously allowed application to access the requested resource, the manager module sends a message ot permission module that allows application access to the requested resource without further prompting the user, Col 14 lines 13-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Endo and Melson such that controlling the entity comprises controlling the entity according to the action without outputting the request based on a determination that the history of approving the granting of the control authority exists for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 06/05/26
Prosecution Insights