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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 30th 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of the Claims
This non-final action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 30th 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are; “…control unit … configured to recognize a command …”, in claims 1 and 8 (and those claims that depend therefrom).
Because this claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The control unit is described in the specification as an electronic processor and memory [paragraph 0021].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (Patent No. DE102019214713A1) in view of Kashani (Patent No. US20200380139A1).
Regarding claim 1 Müller teaches a voice control system for a motor vehicle, the system comprising: a microphone configured to produce a microphone signal dependent upon a voiced utterance by a human user disposed outside of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0067; “…the detection system comprises directional microphones 5a, 5b for detecting the voice command of the approaching person. Based on the direction of the voice command, the relevant vehicle door 4a, ..., 4e can be determined, for example, alternatively or additionally.…”);
and an application communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit and configured to: receive a signal from the electronic control unit; and implement the command in the microphone signal and thereby modify a parameter of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0015-0016; “The control unit may, for example, comprise at least the control unit of the vehicle, which may be designed as an electronic module. Such a control unit can generate commands to open the relevant vehicle door based on the actuation signal. For this purpose, the control unit is connected to a door opening system, for example.”).
Müller does not explicitly teach but Kashani teaches, an electronic control unit communicatively coupled to the microphone and configured to recognize a command in the microphone signal; (See Kashani paragraph 0023; “FIG. 2 illustrates a system 200 with voice recognition capabilities that can encrypt and decrypt speech data. The system 200 may be similar to the system of FIG. 1, … The system 200 may include a microphone module 201… The microphone module 201 may be in communication with a vehicle microphone…”).
Both Müller and Kashani are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kashani control unit communicatively coupled to microphone. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding control unit communicatively coupled to microphone which will allow for recognition of the microphone signal used for voice control. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller teaches, wherein the parameter of the motor vehicle comprises a state of a door being open or closed; (See Müller paragraph 0010; “Operating a vehicle door can, for example, be understood as opening and closing the vehicle door.”).
Regarding claim 5 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller further teaches, wherein the microphone is on a body of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0046; “The microphones 5a, 5b are preferably designed as directional microphones and are arranged on the two vehicle sides 7a, 7b or, for example, on the front 8 and the rear 9 of the vehicle 3. …”).
Regarding claim 8 Müller teaches a voice control system for a motor vehicle having a plurality of doors, the system comprising: a microphone configured to produce a microphone signal dependent upon a voiced utterance by a human user disposed outside of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0067; “…the detection system comprises directional microphones 5a, 5b for detecting the voice command of the approaching person. Based on the direction of the voice command, the relevant vehicle door 4a, ..., 4e can be determined, for example, alternatively or additionally.…”); means for determining which one of the doors of the motor vehicle the human user is approaching; (See Müller paragraph 0031; “…the detection device comprises an optical sensor, for example a camera and/or a surround-view camera system, which is designed to detect the approach of the at least one authorized person to a vehicle door of the vehicle in order to identify the relevant vehicle door and/or to detect a movement trajectory in order to identify the relevant vehicle door.…”);
and an application communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit and configured to: receive a signal from the electronic control unit; and implement the command in the microphone signal to thereby modify the door being approached by the human user; (See Müller paragraph 0015-0017; “The control unit may, for example, comprise at least the control unit of the vehicle, which may be designed as an electronic module. Such a control unit can generate commands to open the relevant vehicle door based on the actuation signal. For this purpose, the control unit is connected to a door opening system, for example…The system according to the invention cleverly uses the direction determination/position determination of the authorized person, so that the voice command can be very short, for example “open door”, since the vehicle recognizes the position of the authorized person and thus the relevant vehicle door. This avoids long and cumbersome commands such as “open the rear left side door”. Furthermore, vague terms such as left, which depend on the approach side of the authorized person (e.g. from the front, from the back), are avoided. This prevents the wrong driver’s door from being opened.”).”).
Müller does not explicitly teach but Kashani teaches, an electronic control unit communicatively coupled to the microphone and to the determining means, the electronic control unit being configured to recognize a command in the microphone signal; (See Kashani paragraph 0023; “FIG. 2 illustrates a system 200 with voice recognition capabilities that can encrypt and decrypt speech data. The system 200 may be similar to the system of FIG. 1, … The system 200 may include a microphone module 201… The microphone module 201 may be in communication with a vehicle microphone…”).
Both Müller and Kashani are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kashani control unit communicatively coupled to microphone. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding control unit communicatively coupled to microphone which will allow for recognition of the microphone signal used for voice control. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller further teaches, wherein the determining means comprises a camera or an infrared sensor configured to detect the user’s body; (See Müller paragraph 0031; “Preferably, the detection device comprises an optical sensor, for example a camera and/or a surround-view camera system, which is designed to detect the approach of the at least one authorized person to a vehicle door of the vehicle in order to identify the relevant vehicle door and/or to detect a movement trajectory in order to identify the relevant vehicle door…”).
Regarding claim 11 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller further teaches, wherein the command is a command to unlock a door of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0013; “The system according to the invention allows authorized persons to give a verbal command to unlock/open the vehicle door when approaching the vehicle…”).
Regarding claim 12 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller further teaches, wherein the command is a command to open or close a window of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0033; “…the actuation signal is designed such that the control unit opens and closes the relevant vehicle door within the preset parameters. For this purpose, the control unit is connected, for example, to a door opening system/door operation system for data technology or data transmission.”).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (Patent No. DE102019214713A1) in view of Kashani (Patent No. US20200380139A1) and Kamdar (Patent No. US20050099275A1).
Regarding claim 2 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the microphone is on a key fob; (See Kamdar paragraph 0031; “…Key fob 220 may include a directional microphone 224…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar key fob microphone. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding key fob microphone which will allow for verbal communication between key fob and vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the parameter of the motor vehicle comprises a state of a window being open or closed; (See Kamdar paragraph 0041; “…method for communicating vehicle security status from a vehicle to a key fob begins with receiving sensor signals at a telematics unit (Block 305) … indicate whether the window is open or closed…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar state of a window being open or closed. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding state of a window being open or closed which will allow for controlling vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the command is a command to open a trunk of the motor vehicle; (See Kamdar paragraph 0017; “…vehicle 110 via a vehicle communication network 146 sends signals to various pieces of equipment and systems within mobile vehicle 110 to perform various functions such as unlocking a door, opening the trunk…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar command to open a trunk of the motor vehicle. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding command to open a trunk of the motor vehicle which will allow for controlling vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the determining means comprises a sensor that detects a location of a key fob; (See Kamdar paragraph 0015; “…Proximity sensor 148 monitors the location of the key fob in relation to the vehicle…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar sensor that detects a location of a key fob. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding state of a sensor that detects a location of a key fob which will allow for determine the location of the key fob in relation to the vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the command is a command to unlock a door and turn on an HVAC system of the motor vehicle; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a command to unlock a door and turn on an HVAC of the motor vehicle. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a command to unlock a door and turn on an HVAC of the motor vehicle which will allow for controlling vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15 Müller teaches a voice biometric system for a motor vehicle, the system comprising; (See Müller paragraph 0061; “This allows the relevant vehicle door 4a,...4e to be determined based solely on the direction from which the voice or voice command comes. The system 1a according to the invention has, as in Fig. 1, a computing unit 10 for receiving the recorded voice commands with a voice biometric voice profile.”); a microphone configured to produce a microphone signal dependent upon a voiced utterance by a human user disposed outside of the motor vehicle; (See Müller paragraph 0067; “…the detection system comprises directional microphones 5a, 5b for detecting the voice command of the approaching person. Based on the direction of the voice command, the relevant vehicle door 4a, ..., 4e can be determined, for example, alternatively or additionally.…”); means for determining which one of the doors of the motor vehicle the human user is approaching; (See Müller paragraph 0031; “…the detection device comprises an optical sensor, for example a camera and/or a surround-view camera system, which is designed to detect the approach of the at least one authorized person to a vehicle door of the vehicle in order to identify the relevant vehicle door and/or to detect a movement trajectory in order to identify the relevant vehicle door.…”);
an electronic control unit communicatively coupled to the microphone and configured to: perform voice biometric processing on the microphone signal to authenticate the human user recognize a command in the microphone signal; (See Müller paragraph 0085; “The control unit may, for example, comprise at least the control unit of the vehicle, which may be designed as an electronic module. Such a control unit can generate commands to open the relevant vehicle door based on the actuation signal. For this purpose, the control unit is connected to a door opening system, for example…The system according to the invention cleverly uses the direction determination/position determination of the authorized person, so that the voice command can be very short, for example “open door”, since the vehicle recognizes the position of the authorized person and thus the relevant vehicle door. This avoids long and cumbersome commands such as “open the rear left side door”. Furthermore, vague terms such as left, which depend on the approach side of the authorized person (e.g. from the front, from the back), are avoided. This prevents the wrong driver’s door from being opened.”);
implement the command in the microphone signal to thereby modify a first parameter of the motor vehicle, the first parameter being a parameter of the door being approached by the human user; (See Müller paragraph 0067; “…the detection system comprises directional microphones 5a, 5b for detecting the voice command of the approaching person. Based on the direction of the voice command, the relevant vehicle door 4a, ..., 4e can be determined, for example, alternatively or additionally.…”); receive a user authentication signal from the electronic control unit; retrieve from memory a preference of the human user who was authenticated by the electronic control unit; (See Müller paragraph 0085; “The control unit may, for example, comprise at least the control unit of the vehicle, which may be designed as an electronic module. Such a control unit can generate commands to open the relevant vehicle door based on the actuation signal. For this purpose, the control unit is connected to a door opening system, for example…The system according to the invention cleverly uses the direction determination/position determination of the authorized person, so that the voice command can be very short, for example “open door”, since the vehicle recognizes the position of the authorized person and thus the relevant vehicle door. This avoids long and cumbersome commands such as “open the rear left side door”. Furthermore, vague terms such as left, which depend on the approach side of the authorized person (e.g. from the front, from the back), are avoided. This prevents the wrong driver’s door from being opened.”).
Müller does not teach but Kashani teaches, and an application communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit and configured to: receive a signal from the electronic control unit indicative of the recognized command; (See Kashani paragraph 0023; “FIG. 2 illustrates a system 200 with voice recognition capabilities that can encrypt and decrypt speech data. The system 200 may be similar to the system of FIG. 1, … The system 200 may include a microphone module 201… The microphone module 201 may be in communication with a vehicle microphone…”).
Both Müller and Kashani are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kashani control unit communicatively coupled to microphone. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding control unit communicatively coupled to microphone which will allow for recognition of the microphone signal used for voice control. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, and modify a second parameter of the motor vehicle dependent upon the preference of the human user that was retrieved from memory; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…controller 240 is a computer memory 242 such as a solid-state flash memory chip along with volatile memory. Memory 242 may store user preferences or personalized settings, as well as a list of messages that direct the mobile vehicle to perform certain functions. For example, the voice control system of key fob 220 may direct the mobile vehicle to secure the vehicle by locking the doors, turning off the lights, locking the trunk, closing the windows or closing the sunroof, and the like. The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters; set the radio or entertainment system to preferred stations; adjust firmness of the suspension; access onboard navigation; connect to an Internet-enabled cellular phone system; and arm or disarm the car alarm system.”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user which will allow for adjusting vehicle systems. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17 Müller in view of Kashani and Kamdar teaches the system of claim 15, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to perform voice biometric processing on the microphone signal before an in-vehicle infotainment system of the motor vehicle is turned on; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…controller 240 is a computer memory 242 such as a solid-state flash memory chip along with volatile memory. Memory 242 may store user preferences or personalized settings, as well as a list of messages that direct the mobile vehicle to perform certain functions. For example, the voice control system of key fob 220 may direct the mobile vehicle to secure the vehicle by locking the doors, turning off the lights, locking the trunk, closing the windows or closing the sunroof, and the like. The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters; set the radio or entertainment system to preferred stations; adjust firmness of the suspension; access onboard navigation; connect to an Internet-enabled cellular phone system; and arm or disarm the car alarm system.”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a control unit is configured to perform voice biometric processing. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a control unit is configured to perform voice biometric processing which will allow for user recognition. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18 Müller in view of Kashani and Kamdar teaches the system of claim 15, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the second parameter of the motor vehicle comprises a seat position; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…controller 240 is a computer memory 242 such as a solid-state flash memory chip along with volatile memory. Memory 242 may store user preferences or personalized settings, as well as a list of messages that direct the mobile vehicle to perform certain functions. For example, the voice control system of key fob 220 may direct the mobile vehicle to secure the vehicle by locking the doors, turning off the lights, locking the trunk, closing the windows or closing the sunroof, and the like. The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters; set the radio or entertainment system to preferred stations; adjust firmness of the suspension; access onboard navigation; connect to an Internet-enabled cellular phone system; and arm or disarm the car alarm system.”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user which will allow for adjusting vehicle systems. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19 Müller in view of Kashani and Kamdar teaches the system of claim 15, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the second parameter of the motor vehicle comprises a HVAC system setting; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters…”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a command to unlock a door and turn on an HVAC of the motor vehicle. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a command to unlock a door and turn on an HVAC of the motor vehicle which will allow for controlling vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20 Müller in view of Kashani and Kamdar teaches the system of claim 15, Müller does not teach but Kamdar teaches, wherein the second parameter of the motor vehicle comprises an infotainment system setting; (See Kamdar paragraph 0037; “…controller 240 is a computer memory 242 such as a solid-state flash memory chip along with volatile memory. Memory 242 may store user preferences or personalized settings, as well as a list of messages that direct the mobile vehicle to perform certain functions. For example, the voice control system of key fob 220 may direct the mobile vehicle to secure the vehicle by locking the doors, turning off the lights, locking the trunk, closing the windows or closing the sunroof, and the like. The voice control system of key fob 220 may also direct the mobile vehicle to perform other tasks such as reposition the steering wheel; program steering wheel buttons; adjust seat positions; set climate controls and turn on seat heaters; set the radio or entertainment system to preferred stations; adjust firmness of the suspension; access onboard navigation; connect to an Internet-enabled cellular phone system; and arm or disarm the car alarm system.”).
Both Müller and Kamdar are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Kamdar a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a modify a parameter of the motor vehicle upon the preference of the user which will allow for adjusting vehicle systems. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (Patent No. DE102019214713A1) in view of Kashani (Patent No. US20200380139A1) and Dodman (Paten No. US20220167139A1).
Regarding claim 6 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 1, Müller does not teach but Dedman teaches, wherein the command is a command to turn on an ignition of the motor vehicle; (See Dodman paragraph 0012; “…vehicle access systems allows the vehicle “key” (or fob) to work without being held in the driver's hand for both vehicle access and turning on the ignition of the vehicle.”).
Both Müller and Dodman are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Dodman a command to turn on an ignition of the motor vehicle. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a command to turn on an ignition of the motor vehicle which will allow for vehicle remote start. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (Patent No. DE102019214713A1) in view of Kashani (Patent No. US20200380139A1) and Cruz (Paten No. US20210214991A1).
Regarding claim 13 Müller in view of Kashani teaches the system of claim 8, Müller does not teach but Cruz teaches, wherein the command is a command to unlock a door and turn on an ignition of the motor vehicle; (See Cruz paragraph 0033; “…keyfobs 63, the user buttons enable a user to selectively activate different RKE functions at vehicle 12, including, but not limited to, locking and unlocking a door …remote ignition starting, and turning on interior and exterior lights…”).
Both Müller and Cruz are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Cruz a command to unlock a door and turn on an ignition. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a command to unlock a door and turn on an ignition which will allow for vehicle remote control. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (Patent No. DE102019214713A1) in view of Kashani (Patent No. US20200380139A1), Kamdar (Patent No. US20050099275A1) and Cruz (Paten No. US20210214991A1).
Regarding claim 16 Müller in view of Kashani and Kamdar teaches the system of claim 15, Müller further teaches, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to perform voice biometric processing on the microphone signal before the motor vehicle is turned on; (See Müller paragraph 0085; “The control unit may, for example, comprise at least the control unit of the vehicle, which may be designed as an electronic module. Such a control unit can generate commands to open the relevant vehicle door based on the actuation signal. For this purpose, the control unit is connected to a door opening system, for example…The system according to the invention cleverly uses the direction determination/position determination of the authorized person, so that the voice command can be very short, for example “open door”, since the vehicle recognizes the position of the authorized person and thus the relevant vehicle door. This avoids long and cumbersome commands such as “open the rear left side door”. Furthermore, vague terms such as left, which depend on the approach side of the authorized person (e.g. from the front, from the back), are avoided. This prevents the wrong driver’s door from being opened.”).
Müller does not teach but Cruz teaches, and before an ignition system of the motor vehicle is turned on; (See Cruz paragraph 0033; “…keyfobs 63, the user buttons enable a user to selectively activate different RKE functions at vehicle 12, including, but not limited to, locking and unlocking a door, arming and disarming a vehicle alarm system, activating a trunk release, panic signaling, remote ignition starting, and turning on interior and exterior lights…”).
Both Müller and Cruz are in the same field of autonomous vehicle feature control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Müller vehicle voice control system and method with Cruz a command to unlock a door and turn on an ignition. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Müller by adding a command to unlock a door and turn on an ignition which will allow for vehicle remote control. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666