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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Tomita as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
2. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0349145) in view of Penilla et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0394637), and further view of Tomita et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2019-157449).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18, Tanabe discloses a method, comprising:
transitioning, in response to a first presence signal, an electronic device from a non-start state to a start state (e.g. paragraphs [0105], [0138]) while a vehicle is parked (implicit from figures 1-3, 5, 10-11, 16-17 and text), wherein the electronic device is integrated into the vehicle (e.g. figures 8, 14);
determining, in response to a second presence signal, that an entity is within a defined range from the vehicle (e.g. paragraphs [0082], [0084], [0090] and figures 10, 13: range Y, but could also be mapped to range X or range Z);
causing, by the electronic device, a speech recognition process receiving input from a microphone integrated into the vehicle to transition from a second power-off state to a second power-on state in response to determining that the entity is within the defined range (e.g. paragraphs [0105], [0138]);
receiving, by the electronic device, from the microphone integrated into the vehicle, an audio signal representative of speech (e.g. paragraph [0091] and figure 13) that is uttered outside a cabin of the vehicle (e.g. paragraphs [0091], [0105], [0138]);
determining, by the electronic device, using the audio signal, that a defined command is present in the speech (e.g. paragraph [0091] and figure 13); and
causing, by the electronic device, an actor device to perform an operation corresponding to the command, wherein performing the operation causes a change in a state of the vehicle (e.g. figures 5-7, 13-14, and paragraph [0091]).
Tanabe fails to disclose transitioning, in response to a first signal, an electronic device from a power-off state to a power-on state while a vehicle is parked; or determining that the entity is approaching the vehicle; or causing the microphone integrated into the vehicle to transition from a second power-off state to a second power-on state in response to determining that the entity is within the defined range and approaching the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla discloses transitioning, in response to a first signal, an electronic device from a power-off state to a power-on state while a vehicle is parked (e.g. [0045], [0059], [0267], [0276], [0288]); or determining that the entity is approaching the vehicle (e.g. [0136], [0143], [0147]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanabe to do, as taught by Penilla, in order to conserve power on the vehicle and avoid unwanted activations of the vehicle systems, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomita discloses causing the microphone integrated into the vehicle to transition from a second power-off state to a second power-on state in response to determining that the entity is within the defined range (abstract, paragraphs [0031], [0006], [0024]) and approaching the vehicle (paragraphs [0017], [0020], [0025]-[0026], [0032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanabe to do, as taught by Tomita, in order to conserve power on the vehicle and avoid unwanted activations of the vehicle systems, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses validating a voice profile associated with the speech before the causing the actor device to perform the operation (e.g. Penilla paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses that the first presence signal is indicative of a hardware token being within a second defined range from the vehicle, the method further comprising receiving, by the electronic device, the first presence signal from a first detector device integrated into the vehicle (e.g. paragraphs [0105], [0138]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses receiving, by the electronic device, the second presence signal from a second detector device integrated into the vehicle (e.g. paragraphs [0082], [0084], [0090] and figures 10, 13).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses causing, by the electronic device, a microphone integrated into the vehicle to transition from a second power-off state to a second power-on state in response to the second presence signal (e.g. from combination of paragraphs [0105], [0138] and Penilla [0045], [0059], [0267], [0276], [0288]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses determining that a level of ambient noise within a cabin of the vehicle is less than a threshold level before the causing the microphone to transition from the second power-off state to the second power-on state (well known in the art. The examiner hereby takes Official Notice).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 20, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses causing, by the electronic device, the vehicle to provide an indication that the vehicle is ready to accept a voice command (e.g. paragraphs [0091] and figure 13, in combination with Penilla paragraphs [0143], [0147]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses that the causing, by the electronic device, the vehicle to provide the indication comprises causing, by the electronic device, one or more lighting devices integrated into the vehicle to turn on (e.g. Penilla paragraphs [0143], [0147]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses determining, based on at least one state signal, that a cabin of the vehicle is open (implicit from figures 2, 5, 10, 16, and text); configuring one or more attributes of signal processing for the audio signal (e.g. paragraphs figures 5-8, 13-14: 601-602, and paragraph [0091]: such as for audio codec/DSP 601 or speech recognition 602); and processing the audio signal according to the one or more configured attributes (e.g. paragraphs figures 5-8, 13-14: 601-602, and paragraph [0091]: such as audio codec/DSP 601 or speech recognition 602).
Regarding claim 17, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses that the microphone is assembled inside a cabin of the vehicle or is assembled outside the cabin of the vehicle and faces an exterior of the vehicle (e.g. figures 1-4, 8, 10-11, 14, 16-17).
Regarding claim 21, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses a first detector device having a first detection range, wherein the first presence signal is associated with the first detector device (e.g. paragraphs [0105], [0138]): any detector inherently has a detection range).
Regarding claim 22, Tanabe in view of Penilla further discloses a second detector device having the defined range less than the first detection range, wherein the second presence signal is associated with the second detector device (e.g. paragraphs [0082], [0084], [0090] and figures 10, 13: range Y, but could also be mapped to range X or range Z).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights