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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/19/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/19/2026, have been fully considered.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, on page 5, of claim 1 under Nakayama et al. (JP 2020160132 A), hereinafter referred to as Nakayama, the Applicant has amended to incorporate the limitations recited in previously existing claim 2, which was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102. This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, on pages 5-8, of claim 2 under Nakayama in view of Han et al. (JP 6571118 B2), hereinafter referred to as Han, the Applicant asserts that Han discloses that the in-vehicle system 102 transmits a verbal request along with user and vehicle information to the external server device in an initial step 720 before any speech recognition analysis is performed. They further assert that Han therefore fails to disclose sending the data indicating the unavailable function, as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakayama, in view of Neff (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017. Neff paras [0085]-[0086] state “The response message can furthermore comprise offering alternative options, to further advantage. This can be practical if the voice command stated by the user cannot be performed, but the server recognizes a practical alternative. For example, the voice command could be “Activate heated seats.” If the vehicle does not have heated seats, a response message could comprise the voice command: “Sorry, your vehicle does not have heated seats. Would you like to increase the interior space temperature?” This example also makes it clear that the method can be carried out iteratively. It can therefore be provided that when the method is carried out more than a single time, vehicle-specific data are acquired and transmitted or response messages are transmitted by the server. In other words, a “dialog” between the server and the motor vehicle or the vehicle user can thereby come about. In this way, the server can check back with the user and can request that the user perform certain actions or confirmations.” This excerpt from Neff shows that, upon receiving a request from the user that cannot be fulfilled, the system transmits vehicle-specific data, such as a vehicle type, and response messages, such as data indicating the unavailable function, between the server and the vehicle.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, on pages 5-8, of claims 3-5 under Nakayama in view of Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2016053966 A), hereinafter referred to as Sekiguchi, the Applicant asserts that Sekiguchi fails to cure the deficiencies of Nakayama and Han. This deficiency, as stated above, is cured by Neff, therefore this argument is considered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (JP 2020160132 A), hereinafter referred to as Nakayama, in view of Neff (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0169823).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a voice recognition apparatus comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with a server apparatus (“The present invention relates to an agent device, a method for controlling an agent device, a program, an agent server, and a method for controlling an agent server,” Nakayama para [0001]);
and a controller configured to: recognize voice input from an occupant of a vehicle (Nakayama Fig. 7 Start (get audio) and reference characters S100 and S102);
[[ and ]] control a function according to the recognized voice input (Nakayama Fig. 7 shows a flow chart for attempting to execute control of a function through voice input);
and output a notification that differs between a case in which the controller has not been able to recognize the voice input and a case in which the controller has recognized the voice input and the function is not available ("The plurality of reasons for not being able to respond include, for example, the following. (1) When the user's utterance was voice-recognized, it could not be converted into text with sufficient accuracy. (2) The language was unknown when the user's utterance was voice-recognized. (3) The verb was unknown when the user's utterance was voice-recognized and intentionally interpreted. (4) When the user's utterance was voice-recognized and intentionally interpreted, the object of the verb was unknown. (5) As a result of voice recognition of the user's utterance and intentional interpretation, a function that the agent does not have is requested," Nakayama para [0059]).
However, Nakayama fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to, after recognizing the voice input and determining that the function is not available, transmit data identifying a vehicle type of the vehicle and data indicating the unavailable function to the server apparatus via the communication interface.
Neff teaches a method and system for voice control of a motor vehicle.
Neff teaches wherein the controller is configured to, after recognizing the voice input and determining that the function is not available, transmit data identifying a vehicle type of the vehicle and data indicating the unavailable function to the server apparatus via the communication interface (Neff paras [0085]-[0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakayama’s disclosure of a voice recognition system to control vehicle functionality by including Neff’s teaching of transmitting vehicle data and function information upon a failed request. The inclusion of vehicle specifications alongside a request for functionality or for an agent allows for the system to better fulfill any future requests. Some vehicles might be equipped with different functionality and might not be able to perform the requested actions. Providing this information allows for the system and server to more succinctly answer and fulfill function requests, allowing for a more accurate and timely response.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, in view of Neff, and further in view of Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2016053966 A), hereinafter referred to as Sekiguchi.
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama, in view of Neff, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Nakayama fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to, upon recognizing the voice input, determine availability of the function with reference to definition data defining a plurality of functions and availability of each function. Sekiguchi teaches a method and system for safely operating a traveling vehicle when performing voice activated functions.
Sekiguchi teaches wherein the controller is configured to, upon recognizing the voice input, determine availability of the function with reference to definition data defining a plurality of functions and availability of each function ("As shown in Figure 7, the data used by the in-vehicle device 100 includes a command list 210 and a list of items that can be operated while driving 220. The command list 210 is created by the application control unit 110 of the in-vehicle device 100, and the list of items that can be operated while driving 220 is created by the list of items that can be operated while driving creation unit 130," Sekiguchi para [0088] and Sekiguchi Fig. 13 reference character S1501-S1506).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakayama’s disclosure of a voice recognition system to control vehicle functionality by including Sekiguchi’s teaching of determining whether or not a function is able to be used by checking the function’s definition. Checking whether a function is able to be used by driving, depending on what that function is, allows for a more timely and accurate response to a voice activated request for functionality. It would be an obvious inclusion to check to make sure if the function is able to be used while driving if that same function is requested while driving, otherwise it might be unsafe for the passengers of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama, in view of Neff and further in view of Sekiguchi, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Nakayama further discloses wherein the definition data further includes data defining reasons for being not available with respect to one or more unavailable functions among the plurality of functions ("Knowledge base DB256 contains information that defines the relationships between things. The response rule DB258 is information that defines the actions that an agent should take in response to a command (such as the content of the response or device control)," Nakayama para [0052] and Nakayama Fig. 7 reference characters S110, S114, S118, S122, and S126 all generate a response as to why the request for the specific function cannot be fulfilled),
and the controller is configured to, after recognizing the voice input and determining that the function is not available, include an explanation of a reason defined with respect to the unavailable function by the definition data in the notification(Nakayama Fig. 7 reference characters S110, S114, S118, S122, and S126 all generate a response as to why the request for the specific function cannot be fulfilled).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama, in view of Neff and further in view of Sekiguchi, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. However, Nakayama fails to disclose wherein the definition data is data defining availability of each function according to a state of the vehicle.
Sekiguchi teaches wherein the definition data is data defining availability of each function according to a state of the vehicle (Sekiguchi Fig. 13 reference character S1503 checks the state of the vehicle, i.e. if it is driving or not, and reference character S1505 checks whether or not the operation can be performed while driving).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakayama’s disclosure of a voice recognition system to control vehicle functionality by including Sekiguchi’s teaching of determining whether or not a function is able to be used by checking the state of the vehicle. Checking whether a function is able to be used by driving, depending on what that function is, allows for a more timely and accurate response to a voice activated request for functionality. It would be an obvious inclusion to check to make sure if the function is able to be used while driving if that same function is requested while driving, otherwise it might be unsafe for the passengers of the vehicle.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights