DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on August 2, 2024. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN2022410056741 filed on February 2, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 2, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 22, the “control unit” in the limitation “a control unit operatively coupled to the switch, the control unit having a communication module” invokes 112(f) as “control unit” is a term that does not have definite structure in the specification which enables the unit to control.
In claims 22, 32 and 34, the “communication module” in the limitation “a control unit operatively coupled to the switch, the control unit having a communication module” invokes 112(f) as “communication module” is a term that does not have definite structure in the specification which enables the module to communicate.
In claims 22, 32 and 34 the “voice input module” in the limitation “voice input module configured to communicate with the communication module” invokes 112(f) as “display unit” is a term that does not have definite structure in the specification which enables the module to input voice.
In claim 33, the “display unit” in the limitation “display unit in communication with the control unit, the display unit configured to display a status upon activation of voice control” invokes 112(f) as “display unit” is a term that does not have definite structure in the specification which enables the unit to display.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) 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 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.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of displaying a status upon activation of a voice control when a switch is actuated. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “a control unit operatively coupled to the switch, the control unit having a communication module; and a safety gear having a voice input module, the voice input module configured to communicate with the communication module, wherein the voice input module receives voice input from a rider and establishes communication with the communication module when the switch is actuated” and “display unit configured to display a status upon activation of voice control” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of displaying a status upon activation of voice control is performed by a control unit, a voice input module, a communication module, and a display unit. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the process as claimed. The use of the terms unit and module are not adequate structure for performing the displaying of the status because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Santucci et al., US 2023/0041105A1 (Hereinafter, “Santucci”).
Regarding Claims 22 and 34, Santucci discloses a system to operate voice control for a vehicle, comprising: a switch (21); a control unit (23) operatively coupled to the switch, the control unit having a communication module (5); See at least Fig.1 and [0007], “method for imparting commands to a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle comprises: a central control unit, at least one steered wheel, and a steering member for acting on the steered wheel. The method comprises a step of activating, by means of an interface device (switch) on the steering member, a voice recognition function on a mobile device (communication module) interfaced with the central control unit.” And [0026], “The interface device 21 is connected with the central control unit 23 by means of a connection schematically indicated with 27.”
a safety gear (3) having a voice input module, the voice input module configured to communicate with the communication module, See at least [0021], “The smartphone 5 is provided with a microphone to allow the driver 2 to communicate vocally with the smartphone 5 … by means of a Bluetooth connection. They can be inserted into the helmet 3, or integrated therein.”
wherein the voice input module receives voice input from a rider and establishes communication with the communication module when the switch is actuated, See at least [0043], “The interface device 21 (switch) can also be used to impart different commands or instructions, such as activation and subsequent deactivation of voice recognition.”
the switch is configured to be actuated in one or more positions by the rider, the switch based on the position of actuation generates a corresponding electric signal. See at least Fig.3 and [0044], “the interface device 21 (switch) can be provided with different components, for example a plurality of buttons, or a joystick that can be moved in different directions.” Note: switch operation in an electrical circuit as shown in Fig.3.
Regarding Claims 23 and 35, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22 and 34:
wherein the one or more positions in which the switch can be actuated are forward, rear, left, right in a vehicle front-rear direction and centre. See at least Fig.3 and [0044], “the interface device 21 (switch) can be provided with different components … a joystick that can be moved in different directions.” Note: joystick operation can account for all five positions in the claim as shown in Fig.2.
Regarding Claims 24 and 36, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 22 and 34:
wherein the switch (21) is configured to generate an electric signal for activating voice control when operated in the centre position for a first predetermined time. See at least [0044], “driver 2 can impart different commands by pressing the button once or more than once, or pressing and holding the button for different times, for example a short pressure to activate voice recognition, or a longer pressure to allow execution of the instruction imparted by means of the voice command or vice versa.”
Regarding Claims 25 and 37, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the switch (21) is configured to generate an electric signal for deactivating voice control when operated again in the centre position for the first predetermined time. See at least [0043], “The interface device 21 can also be used to impart different commands or instructions, such as activation and subsequent deactivation of voice recognition.” And [0044], “driver 2 can impart different commands by pressing the button once or more than once, or pressing and holding the button for different times, for example a short pressure to activate voice recognition, or a longer pressure to allow execution of the instruction imparted by means of the voice command or vice versa.” While the deactivation function time is not explicitly disclosed, it would be obvious to one in the art to press the button again momentarily after activation in [0044] to deactivate the process as disclosed in [0043].
Regarding Claims 26 and 38, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate voice control when the switch (21) is not operated for a second predetermined time. See at least [0040], “the driver acts on the interface device 21 (switch), so that the central control unit 23 transmits a voice recognition activation command to the smartphone 5 connected thereto.” And [0042], “The application of the smartphone 5 can be programmed to deactivate voice recognition … predetermined period of time after activation.”
Regarding Claim 27 and 39, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 24 and 36:
wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate voice control when the voice control is not used for a third predetermined time. See at least [0038], “The application of the smartphone 5 can be programmed to deactivate voice recognition immediately after having imparted the instruction corresponding to the voice command received. Otherwise, voice recognition can remain active for a predetermined period of time after activation.”
Regarding Claim 29, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the control unit is configured to perform a predetermined function based on the corresponding electric signal generated by the switch. See at least [0047], “FIG. 4 summarizes in a flow chart a possible embodiment of a method according to the invention. In the block 101 the driver 2 activates the interface device 21 (switch). The central control unit 23 sends a voice recognition activation command to the smartphone 5. The block 102 verifies whether voice recognition is available.”
Regarding Claim 30, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the vehicle (1) is a saddle type vehicle having the switch (21) mounted on a handlebar (11) of the saddle type vehicle. See at least Fig.1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 31, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 22:
wherein the safety gear comprises a helmet to be worn by the rider. See at least [0015], “FIG. 1 shows a motor vehicle driven by a driver wearing a helmet.”
Regarding Claim 32, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the communication module (5) and the voice input module communicate over a wireless network. See at least [0021], “The smartphone (communication module) 5 is provided with a microphone to allow the driver 2 to communicate vocally with the smartphone 5 … microphone 9 can be connected to the smartphone 5 …. preferably with a wireless connection, for example by means of a Bluetooth connection.”
Regarding Claims 33 and 41, Santucci discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 22 and 34:
comprising a display unit in communication with the control unit, the display unit configured to display a status upon activation of voice control. See at least [0025], “central control unit 23, in data exchange relationship with the smartphone 5.“ And [0045], “To facilitate the use of the functions described above, the driver 2 can be notified of various conditions or requests by means of an optical signal on the display of the smartphone 5 (legible for example if this is mounted on or in the dashboard of the motor vehicle 1) or preferably by means of an acoustic signal through the earpiece 7. For example, in this way the driver 2 can be notified of the following conditions or requests: correct activation of voice recognition.”
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 28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Official Car Reviews “2019 MAZDA USER GUIDE - HOW-TO - Mazda6, Mazda3, CX9, CX5, CX3 and Others” (Hereinafter ”Mazda”), published September 29, 2018.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiMtBCPsD18).
Regarding Claims 28 and 40, Santucci discloses a voice control system for a motorcycle, but he does not disclose a multifunction switch. However, Mazda teaches a voice control system dependent on Claims 22 and 34:
wherein the switch is configured to generate an electric signal corresponding to a plurality of functions including accepting or rejecting incoming phone calls (Time: 5:30),
changing volume or pausing music (Time:11:40),
navigating a screen installed in the vehicle (Time: 4:00),
viewing stored documents in a storage device of the vehicle (Time: 20:20)
when operated in the forward, rear, left, right positions in a vehicle front-rear direction (Time: 7:00).
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Santucci’s voice control device with the multifunction switch limitations disclosed in Mazda with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide safer driving functions, see Mazda [Time:1:00].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 2018/0041628 A1 Shannir et al.
US Publication US 2021/0074289 A1 Brommand et al.
European Publication EP 3955244 A1 YI HUI et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669