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 .
This office action is sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 11/25/2024 for the application number 18958713. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 03/06/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as
explained below.
Claim 1 recites a control apparatus configured to
detect, as a command, a voice having been uttered by each of a plurality of occupants in a vehicle
control, based on the detected voice, a function installed in the vehicle
upon detecting a first voice having been uttered by a first occupant, among the plurality of occupants, the first voice having been uttered as a command to activate the function, determine, as a first attribute, an attribute of the first occupant
upon detecting, after the first voice has been detected and before the function is activated, a second voice different from the first voice, the second voice having been uttered as a command to cancel the activation of the function;
determine, as a second attribute, an attribute of a second occupant who has uttered the second voice;
determine, according to a result of a comparison between the first attribute and the second attribute, whether to interrupt control to be performed based on the first voice.
Step (a) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can receive a voice uttered by each of the plurality of occupants in a vehicle as a command.
Step (b) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can control or decide to perform a function based on a detected voice.
Step (c) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine an attribute of a first occupant after hearing a first voice uttered as a command.
Step (d) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can hear a second voice uttered after the first voice and recognize that the second voice is a command to cancel the activation of the function.
Step (e) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine an attribute of a second occupant after hearing the second voice.
Step (f) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can compare the first attribute with the second attribute and determine whether to interrupt control to be performed based on the first voice.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any
statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least apparatus. Thus, the claim is a
machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A, Prong
One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the
judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of steps (a)-(f) recites a mental process.
Specifically, step (a) can be performed by a human as a person can receive a voice uttered by each of the plurality of occupants in a vehicle as a command.
Step (b) can be performed by a human as a person can control or decide to perform a function based on a detected voice.
Step (c) can be performed by a human as a person can determine an attribute of a first occupant after hearing a first voice uttered as a command.
Step (d) can be performed by a human as a person can hear a second voice uttered after the first voice and recognize that the second voice is a command to cancel the activation of the function.
Step (e) can be performed by a human as a person can determine an attribute of a second occupant after hearing the second voice.
Step (f) can be performed by a human as a person can compare the first attribute with the second attribute and determine whether to interrupt control to be performed based on the first voice.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See
MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recited additional elements including a control apparatus, a controller, a vehicle, and voice sensors. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions, such as receiving voice inputs, determining occupant attributes, comparing attributes, and controlling vehicle functions. The use of these elements to detect voice commands, determine attributes of occupants, compare the attributes, and determine whether to interrupt control merely automates the mental processes described above using generic computer components. Such implementation does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed with
respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the control apparatus, a controller, a vehicle, and voice sensors comprise additional elements that perform well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities in the field such as receiving data, processing data, generating content,
and providing output. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As known in the art these elements are well
understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computing device. Even when considered in
combination these additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic
computer components and perform insignificant extra-solutional activity, which does not provide
an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a mental process as a human can associate a seat position with an attribute of an occupant and determine an occupants attribute based on the seat position.
Claim 3 recites a mental process as a human can identify an occupant based on characteristics of the occupant’s voice.
Claim 4 recites a mental process as a human can recognize a negative command intended to cancel a previously requested action.
Claim 5 recites a mental process as a human can compare attributes of two occupants and determine a dominance relationship between the occupants.
Claim 6 recites a mental process as a human can determine that a first occupant should continue controlling a function when the first occupant has equal or greater authority than a second occupant.
Claim 7 recites a mental process as a human can determine that a second occupant should interrupt control of a function when the second occupant has greater authority than the first occupant.
Claim 8 recites a mental process as a human can determine a relationship between two individuals, such as a parent-child, teacher-student, or caregiver-parent relationship.
Claim 9 recites a mental process as a human can remember prior interactions between an individual’s attributes and requested functions, compare subsequent requests to those remembered interactions, and prevent a repeated request based on the comparison.
Claim 10 does not add any meaningful limitation beyond claim 1 because it merely recites the control apparatus of claim 1 as being included in a vehicle. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to the same judicial exception as claim 1.
Claims 11-15 recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1-5. Accordingly, they are directed to the same set of abstract ideas.
Claims 16-20 recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1-5. Accordingly, they are directed to the same set of abstract ideas.
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.
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, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzorati et al. (US 20230202490) in view of Basterrechea (US 20250232664 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marzorati teaches a control apparatus configured to detect, as a command, a voice having been uttered by each of a plurality of occupants in a vehicle (Fig. 4, teaches system as a whole including detecting multiple occupants, as well as receiving commands from any of them), and control, based on the detected voice, a function installed in the vehicle (Para 0003, “input of a command for performance by the AV to control a function”), the control apparatus comprising: a controller configured to: upon detecting a first voice having been uttered by a first occupant, among the plurality of occupants, the first voice having been uttered as a command to activate the function, determine, as a first attribute, an attribute of the first occupant (Fig. 4 depicts the system to receive commands and para 0064, “The process continues by determining (404), based on identifying the one or more occupants of the AV, a respective prioritization level for each occupant” where the prioritization level comprises an attribute of an occupant); upon detecting, after the first voice has been detected and before the function is activated, a second voice different from the first voice (Para 0034, “the child’s command to open the window could be performed as long as another occupant … has not … within a defined amount of time such as 5 seconds, override this command”, wherein the first voice (childs) command is not yet activated (5 second window) and in that time the system can detect a voice different from the first (another occupant) before the activation of the function), determine, as a second attribute, an attribute of a second occupant who has uttered the second voice (Para 0064, the system determines a prioritization for each occupant); and determine, according to a result of a comparison between the first attribute and the second attribute, whether to interrupt control to be performed based on the first voice. (Para 0065, “The process can determine to perform the command in the case that the prioritization level for the occupant is at least at privileged as a prioritization level for the other user.”).
Marzorati does not teach the voice having been uttered as a command to cancel the activation of the function.
However, Basterrechea teaches the voice having been uttered as a command to cancel the activation of the function. (Para 0083, “the first capture device (22) can include the cancellation means (19), for example… recognition of a voice cancellation command… from the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Marzorati such as to incorporate the teachings of Basterrechea in order to improve user control by enabling cancellation of pending voice-activated functions through voice commands (Para 0083).
Regarding claim 3, Marzorati teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire voice attribute information indicating a correspondence relationship between a feature of a voice of each occupant and an attribute of that occupant (Para 0024, ““voice data received from a microphone of the AV from voice input… can identify each occupant and obtain … a profile, of that occupant to obtain/inform a prioritization level for that occupant.” Wherein the profile comprises a relationship between the voice and the prioritization level which comprises an attribute), and upon detecting a voice having been uttered by each of the occupants, the controller is configured to extract a feature of the voice by analyzing the voice (Para 0024, the system necessarily extracts the voice data by using features), and determine, based on the extracted feature, an attribute of the occupant who has uttered the voice, with reference to the correspondence relationship indicated by the voice attribute information. (Para 0024, “can identify each occupant and obtain … a profile, of that occupant to obtain/inform a prioritization level for that occupant.”).
Regarding claim 4, Marzorati teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect, among voices detected after the first voice has been detected and before the function is activated, a voice different from the first voice (Para 0034, “the child’s command to open the window could be performed as long as another occupant … has not … within a defined amount of time such as 5 seconds, override this command”, wherein the first voice (childs) command is not yet activated (5 second window) and in that time the system can detect a voice different from the first (another occupant) before the activation of the function).
Marzorati does not teach the voice containing a negative term, having been uttered as a command to cancel the activation of the function.
However, Basterrechea teaches the voice containing a negative term, having been uttered as a command to cancel the activation of the function. (Para 0083, “the first capture device (22) can include the cancellation means (19), for example… recognition of a voice cancellation command… from the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Marzorati such as to incorporate the teachings of Basterrechea in order to improve user control by enabling cancellation of pending voice-activated functions through voice commands (Para 0083).
Regarding claim 5, Marzorati teaches wherein the controller is configured to compare the first attribute with the second attribute, to thereby estimate a dominance relationship between the first occupant and the second occupant. (Para 0033, “the system can understand that the parent’s instruction has greater weight on account of the higher prioritization level for the parent” wherein the two speakers prioritization levels are the first and second attribute level).
Regarding claim 6, Marzorati teaches wherein when it is estimated that there is no dominance or subordination between the first occupant and the second occupant, or the first occupant is more dominant than the second occupant (Para 0035, “a later-provided command … by a second occupant … can be performed to override the earlier command on account of the higher privilege/priority of the second occupant.”, implies that if the second voice has lower priority, then it will not override the earlier command and the earlier command will remain in effect), the controller is configured to determine to continue the control to be performed based on the first voice. (Para 0035).
Regarding claim 7, Marzorati teaches wherein when it is estimated that the second occupant is more dominant than the first occupant, the controller is configured to determine to interrupt the control to be performed based on the first voice. (Para 0035, “a later-provided command … by a second occupant … can be performed to override the earlier command on account of the higher privilege/priority of the second occupant.” Wherein the second occupant is more dominant (higher priority) and is able to interrupt commands from the first occupant).
Regarding claim 8, Marzorati teaches wherein the controller is configured to estimate, as the dominance relationship, a parent and child relationship, a teacher and student relationship, or a caregiver and patient relationship. (Para 0032, “it may be assumed that adults/parents (to be given higher priority/privilege over some/all functions) …and children (to be given less priority over some functions/all functions)”).
Regarding claim 10, Marzorati teaches a vehicle comprising the control apparatus according to claim 1. (Para 0003, “The method receives occupant identification data from device(s) of an autonomous vehicle (AV) and identifies occupant(s) of the AV”).
Claim 11 & 16 are analogous to claim 1 in that they recite substantially the same limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 13 & 18 are analogous to claim 3 in that they recite substantially the same
limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 14 & 19 are analogous to claim 4 in that they recite substantially the same limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 15 & 20 are analogous to claim 5 in that they recite substantially the same
limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 2, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Marzorati (US20230202490) and Basterrechea (US 20250232664 A1) as above in claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 and further in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (US 11792520 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Marzorati modified by Basterrechea teaches wherein the vehicle has voice sensors installed in individual seats thereof (Para 0018, “Sensors 110a, ..., 110n can include, … audio sensors, … sensors within a seat”), the controller is configured to acquire position attribute information indicating a correspondence relationship between a position of each seat and an attribute of an occupant who is seated in that seat (Para 0031, “certain seating positions in the AV could be identified that provide the occupants in those position higher priority/privilege” wherein the prioritization corresponds to the attribute), and determine, based on the identified position of the seat, an attribute of an occupant who has uttered the voice, with reference to the correspondence relationship indicated by the position attribute information (Para 0031, “The occupant in the ‘driver’s’ seat … could receive the highest prioritization level, followed by the prioritization level given to any occupants in the other seat(s)”, where certain determined locations inform the assignment of the attribute (prioritization)).
Marzorati does not teach upon detecting a voice via one of the voice sensors, the controller is configured to identify a location installed with the voice sensor that has detected the voice.
However, Fitzpatrick teaches upon detecting a voice via one of the voice sensors, the controller is configured to identify a location installed with the voice sensor that has detected the voice. (Col. 30, Ln 50-53, “The recording device can also identify the locations of the different microphones that provided the recording device with sets of data that contain the actionable sound.” Wherein the device identifies the location of specific microphones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Marzorati such as to incorporate the teachings of Fitzpatrick in order to improve identification of the location from which a detected voice originated. (Col. 30).
Claim 12 & 17 are analogous to claim 2 in that they recite substantially the same limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Marzorati (US20230202490) and Basterrechea (US 20250232664 A1) as above in claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 and further in view of Bender et al. (US 20190348034 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Marzorati modified by Basterrechea teaches when the controller has determined, according to the result of comparing the first attribute with the second attribute, to interrupt the control to be performed based on the first voice, a type of the function that was planned to be activated by the interrupted control and the attribute determined as the first attribute, by associating the type with the attribute (Para 0046, “the instructions database 218 that logs received instructions/commands as well as the disposal of those commands, for instance whether or not they were performed … Command handling may be logged, which might include … their prioritization levels” wherein the instructions/commands correspond to the ‘type’ and the prioritization level corresponds to the attribute), wherein the controller is configured to: upon detecting, as commands, voices having been uttered by the individual occupants before a predetermined period of time elapses since the control to be performed based on the first voice has been interrupted (Para 0035, “the child’s command to open the window could be performed as long as another occupant … has not … within a defined amount of time such as 5 seconds, override this command”, wherein the system teaches a predetermined amount of time (5 seconds), before execution of the initial command is finalized, during which additional commands are detected), determine, for each of the detected voices, a type of a function to be activated by control to be performed based on each voice and an attribute of an occupant who has uttered that voice (Para 0024, “identify each occupant … to obtain/inform a prioritization level for that occupant.” And para 0028, “…determines whether to perform the command…”, wherein for each voice the system identifies the occupant and corresponding attribute (prioritization) and the type (command)); and disable a command by that voice when the combinations are determined to coincide with each other (Para 0075, “and determining based at least on the comparison whether to perform the command”, wherein the system decides whether or not to disable based on comparison between the weights which are associated with stored past combinations).
Marzorati does not teach determining, with reference to the memory, whether a current input coincides with a previously rejected input as being associated with each other in the memory.
However, Bender teaches determining, with reference to the memory, whether a current input coincides with a previously rejected input as being associated with each other in the memory. (Fig. 2, wherein if the observed command has been previously rejected (matches data in the blacklist) then the action is discarded)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Marzorati such as to incorporate the teachings of Bender in order to improve system efficiency by automatically rejecting commands previously determined to be impermissible, thereby avoiding repeating unnecessary processing (Para 0019).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALAN FOSTER JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8874. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/MICHAEL A FOSTER JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2654 /Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights