DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 07/31/2024. Claims 12-22 are pending and have been examined. Claims 12 and 22 are independent. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. This Application was published as U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0218435.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 and 11/04/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/051811 submitted on 01/25/2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application DE 10 2022 000 387.2 filed in German Patent Office on 02/01/2022 and receipt of a certified copy thereof.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-4 include a series of numbered blocks that do not include any suitable legend for understanding the drawing. Accordingly, these drawings fail to convey the part of invention to which they are intended to pertain without referring to the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujirai, (US Pub No. 2004/0260562, hereinafter, Kujirai) in view of Feit et al., (US Pub No. 2016/0062635, hereinafter, Feit).
Regarding Claim 12,
Kujirai disclose a method for processing speech inputs to control a plurality of vehicle functions in a vehicle, the method comprising (Kujirai, Fig.1, paras [001, 034], "…a speech interaction arrangement (terminals, methods, implementations) for helping control simultaneous execution of a plurality of applications...
The terminal may be installed as part of a system shown representatively by a block 16. For example, block may represent a vehicle..."; par [036], "…The control unit 14 receives a result of the speech recognition, and provides control to execute the application 15 corresponding to the global command..."):
prioritizing the plurality of vehicle functions (Kujirai, par [051], "…the applications are prioritized to execute a highest prioritized application…the priority order does not necessarily need to be fixed, e.g., maybe dynamic and change over time…");
simultaneously displaying graphics assigned to the plurality of vehicle functions on a screen of the vehicle with the displayed graphic for a vehicle function of the plurality of vehicle functions (Kujirai, Figs.17, 20, par [083], "…a car navigation system, which is an in-vehicle terminal, is explained. A car navigation system such as shown in FIG. 17 includes a display unit 171..."; par [084], "…a "navigation application" and "music application" are displayed on the screen…")
receiving, by a speech recognition unit of the vehicle, a speech input that is a neutral short command (Kujirai, Fig.3, par [042], "…FIG. 3 is an example control flow of this terminal. After speech recognition (30)..."; Fig.4, par [049], "…when different applications have the same global command (i.e., neutral short command, e.g., "help" in Fig.4)..."); and
processing the received speech input based on the neutral short command being directed to the vehicle function (Kujirai, par [049], "…if the global command corresponds to the state of a currently-interacting application, only the application 15 currently interacting with the user may execute a process required by the user...")
But Kujirai does not explicitly discloses the limitations, "having a highest priority being distinctively marked relative to the displayed graphics of other ones of the plurality of vehicle functions" and "having the displayed graphic marked distinctively."
However, Feit, in the analogous field of endeavor, discloses having a highest priority being distinctively marked relative to the displayed graphics of other ones of the plurality of vehicle functions (Feit, Figs.4, 6, paras [059-62], "…in FIG. 4, a first application 212A is running in the 'foreground' because it occupies a larger display or screen area than a second application 214B, which is running in the 'background' because it is minimized (e.g., in a taskbar, etc.)…"; i.e., "running in the 'foreground' with a larger screen area" ( or active window) is construed to indicate the current interaction and higher priority as being well-known to a person skilled in the art.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a speech interaction terminal for control of vehicle function applications of Kujirai with techniques of application management of Feit with a reasonable expectation of success to run multiple applications concurrently and enables a user to quickly switch or multi-task between two or more applications in an efficient manner (Feit, par [003]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Kujirai further discloses wherein the prioritization is determined using predefined functions suitable for selection with the short neutral command (Kujirai, Fig.4, paras [049-051], see the example of predetermined prioritization with "help" in Fig.4 ),
wherein one of the predefined functions is dynamically prioritized with respect to a reaction to the neutral short command (Kujirai, par [051], "…the user speaks a global command shared by a plurality of applications, it may be predetermined which application executes a process corresponding to the command…the priority order does not necessarily need to be fixed, e.g., maybe dynamic and change over time...").
Regarding Claim 14,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Kujirai further discloses wherein the prioritization of the plurality of vehicle functions is determined using a model trained with historical data based on a for a person using the vehicle (Kujirai, paras [067, 82], "…A function of an application to be used may differ according to its user, so that the commands to be used may depend on the user…the information on the states of the applications 133 and the information on the priority levels...These pieces of information may change over time according to usage of the user..."; i.e., user-specific commands and prioritization).
Regarding Claim 15,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12,
Feit further discloses wherein the prioritization of the plurality of vehicle functions is determined based on a context of the vehicle (Feit, par [042], "…the application component 130 may select, determine, promote, or generate shortcuts based on one or more usage characteristics, such as operation mode or gear of a vehicle...
the application component 130 may provide users or drivers of vehicles with shortcuts to applications which may be more useful to occupants of vehicles due to presentation of respective shortcuts based on the context of a scenario...").
Regarding Claim 16,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose method of claim 12.
Kujirai further discloses wherein the prioritization of the plurality of vehicle functions is determined based on a person using the vehicle (Kujirai, par [067-068], "…A function of an application to be used may differ according to its user, so that the commands to be used may depend on the user...").
Regarding Claim 17,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose method of claim 12
Kujirai further discloses wherein each of the plurality of vehicle functions is activatable by a speech input having an unambiguous command comprising a naming of a corresponding one of the plurality of vehicle functions that is not the vehicle function having the highest priority (Kujirai, par [039], "when an application is not operating, a name of the application may become valid as a global command for activation of the application..."; par [089], "…only a command to be spoken by the user to activate the traffic information application not currently activated is managed…").
Regarding Claim 18,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Feit further discloses wherein a person using the vehicle marks a graphic of one of the plurality of vehicle functions on the screen, wherein the marked graphic is the vehicle function having the highest priority(Feit, paras [059-062], "…a user may switch between the first application 212A and the second application 214C by applying a two finger swipe indicated at 610...").
Regarding Claim 19,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Feit further discloses wherein the distinctive marking of the vehicle function having the highest priority involves displaying the graphic for the vehicle function having the highest priority with a graphic highlighting or the graphic for the vehicle function having the highest priority is horizontally or vertically center on the screen in a manner distinguishable from other graphics on the screen (Feit, Fig.4, par [059-062], "…a first application212A is running in the 'foreground' because it occupies a larger display or screen area than a second application 2148, which is running in the 'background' because it is minimized (e.g., in a taskbar, etc.)...").
Regarding Claim 20,
Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Feit further discloses wherein when another one of the plurality of vehicle functions has the highest priority, the graphic for the another one of the plurality of vehicle functions is distinctive marked so that the another one of the plurality of vehicle functions is addressable via the neutral short command (Feit, Figs.4,6, par [059-062], "…The management component 140 may provide or generate a swap application button 310, which when pressed, enables a user to swap between the first application and the second application or application 212A and 214..."; i.e., it is construed that both 'first' and 'second' applications have highest priority and marked as such using the swap button) .
Regarding Claim 21,Kujirai in view of Feit disclose the method of claim 12.
Kujirai further discloses wherein information about the speech input request is transmitted to a speech dialogue system together with the priority assigned to the vehicle function having the highest priority and, when the speech dialogue system confirms that the vehicle function having the highest priority has the highest priority, the graphic associated with the vehicle function is marked as reacting to the neutral short command (Kujirai, par [039], "…when an application is not operating, a name of the application may become valid as a global command for activation of the application. After the activation, a plurality of operation commands may become valid (active) to achieve more concrete operations..."; par [087], "…In addition to the two applications displayed on the screens, this system has obtained a "traffic information application", so that a command corresponding to the "traffic information application" may also be managed…application not displayed on the screen may be executed by calling it directly by use of a speech command..." ).
Claim 22 is a device claim with limitations similar to the limitations of Claim 12 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally,
Kujirai discloses an operating device for controlling vehicle functions, the operating device comprising: a microphone (Fig.1, par [035], "…The speech input unit 11 is, for example, a microphone attached to a sun visor of an automobile…"); a screen (Fig.13, par [037], "…a discrete monitor unit 134 may be provided to monitor applications 133(a,b,c)..."; and a processor coupled to the microphone and screen (Fig.1, par [033], "…a control unit 13..."; par [029], "…the invention may be able to be practiced with other types of electronic devices (e.g., personal computers, servers) and/or systems (mainframes)..."), wherein the processor is configured to
...
Rationale for combination is similar to that provided for Claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huber et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0033727, hereinafter, Huber) discloses a method of supporting the user of a voice input system by which a quantity of potential voice commands is visually issued to the user (Huber, par [002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANGWOEN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BHAVESH MEHTA can be reached at (571)272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANGWOEN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2656 /BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656