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 application 18/785,782, which was filed 07/26/24. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 1-12 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 according to the action, in response to the determined control authority”, 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” 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.
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 2-6 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 2-6 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 4 recites “determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in the entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity; and receiving approval for the entity and the action from another occupant at the another seat position” which could be performed by mentally identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in the entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity; and receiving approval for the entity and the action from another occupant at the another seat position.
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.
In sum, claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-6 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-6 (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 2-6 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 8-12 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 2-6, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 7 and 2-6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (JP 2021028650A).
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 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).
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 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).
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 4, Endo discloses Endo discloses determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in the entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity (determining that the command is not a passenger seat command, and identifying it as a driver’s seat command, page 2); and receiving approval for the entity and the action from another occupant at the another seat position (performing the command when the command is a driver’s seat command and the speaker is in the driver’s seat, 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).
Consider claim 10, Endo discloses Endo discloses determining the control authority includes: identifying, based on a determination that the entity is not included in the entity list, another seat position having control authority over the entity (determining that the command is not a passenger seat command, and identifying it as a driver’s seat command, page 2); and receiving approval for the entity and the action from another occupant at the another seat position (performing the command when the command is a driver’s seat command and the speaker is in the driver’s seat, page 2).
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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2021028650A) in 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 does 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 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 vehcicle 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 does 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 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 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 does 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 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 does 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180072190 Kowalski discloses management of mobile device control of vehicle systems using policies
US 20250074459 Ohsugi discloses an autonomous driving system with a control unit determining authority of the occupant specified by an in vehicle camera using seat position, see [0026]
US 20210166683 Joh discloses vehicle control using voice commands based on passenger position
US 20090055180 Coon discloses optimizing recognition of voice commands in a vehicle
US 6230138 Everhart discloses controlling multiple speech engines in an in-vehicle speech recognition system
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 01/23/26