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 5/12/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations are partially withdrawn.
Examiner notes that voice assistant architecture is not a generic placeholder because voice assistants are well known pieces of software in the art.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Hrabak does not teach validating the voice commands are directed to a valid ADAS operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0043 of Hrabak teaches receiving voice commands and then determining whether to move the vehicle based on the voice commands. Validation of the requests is based on determining if the utterance has a navigational intent, a destination, and a relative or an absolute maneuver intent. If the validation is successful, the vehicle will maneuver, and is directed to a valid ADAS operation.
Applicant argues that Hrabak does not teach validation of an unambiguous instruction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 0043 and 0055 of Hrabak teaches clarifying an unrecognized utterance and confirming the utterance with the user. These unambiguous instructions are then validated to determine a maneuver intent and whether to maneuver the vehicle.
Applicant argues that Hrabak does not teach rejecting an ambiguous voice command. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0043 of Hrabak teaches requesting the user to clarify an ambiguous voice command. This means the ambiguous voice command is rejected and overwritten with another voice command.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is 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 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 sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
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.
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: a “virtual control module” in claims 1, 8, 10, 17, 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: a “virtual control module” in specification [0037].
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 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 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 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hrabak (US 20210070316 A1).
Claim 1
Hrabak teaches:
A computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising (Hrabak - Abstract, Paragraphs 0035, 0042-0043)
receiving, at a virtual control module, a voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0041, 0043) “the processor 220 is operative to receive a vehicle operator utterance”
processing, via a voice assistant architecture of the virtual control module, the voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0035, 0043, 0052) “The processor 420 may be operative to a voice recognition algorithm to recognize a navigational request in response to the received electronic representation of the operator utterance”
validating, via the virtual control module, that the voice command is directed to a valid advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) operation of a vehicle (Hrabak - Paragraph 0043) “If the navigational utterance has a relative or absolute maneuver intent… The processor 220 is then operative to couple the motion path, or a control signal representative of the motion path, to the vehicle controller 230 to execute the requested maneuver”
and includes an unambiguous instruction (Hrabak - Paragraph 0043, 0055) “once the intended maneuver is recognized”
wherein the voice assistant architecture is configured to reject the voice command if the voice command includes an ambiguous instruction (Hrabak - Paragraph 0043) “request a clarification from the operator if any one of the previous steps, such as an unrecognized utterance”
confirming, via the voice assistant architecture, the voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0055, 0059) “The processor 420 may then generate a user request for confirmation”
and executing, via the ADAS of the vehicle , one or more ADAS operations in response to the confirmed voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0043, 0059) “a confirmation of the intended maneuver maybe requested before the motion path or control signal is coupled to the vehicle controller 230”
Claim 2
Hrabak teaches:
confirming the voice command includes projecting, via a speaker system of the vehicle, the voice command (Hrabak – Paragraph 0043) “The clarification requested may be present to the operative via the user interface or an audio alert played via a speaker or the like. In addition, once the intended maneuver is recognized, a confirmation of the intended maneuver maybe requested”
Claim 3
Hrabak teaches:
confirming the voice command includes receiving, from a driver monitoring system, a confirmation command in response to the projected voice command (Hrabak – Paragraph 0055) “receive a user confirmation via the microphone 410”
Claim 6
Hrabak teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Hrabak further teaches:
executing the one or more ADAS operations includes executing at least one of a brake command, a steering command, and a torque command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0041-0042) “individual steering control signal to couple to the steering controller 270, a braking control signal to couple to the brake controller 260 and a throttle control signal to couple to the throttle controller 255 in order to execute the desired path”
Claim 7
Hrabak teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Hrabak further teaches:
the one or more ADAS operations includes one or more of speed control, lane assist, path follow, lane change, braking assist, and adaptive cruise control (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0041-0042) “lane centering, curve following, lane changes, etc”
Claim 9
Hrabak teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Hrabak further teaches:
executing the one or more ADAS operations includes determining at least one of a vehicle position and a speed profile of the vehicle (Hrabak - Paragraph 0039, 0042, 0052 ) “This desired path information may be determined in response to the vehicle speed, the yaw angle and the lateral position of the vehicle within the lane”
Claim 10
Hrabak teaches:
confirming, via a speaker system of a vehicle, the voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0055, 0059) “The processor 420 may then generate a user request for confirmation”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 11-12
All of the limitations of these claims have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejections above.
Claims 15-16 and 18
All of the limitations of these claims have been examined with respect to claims 6-7 and 9. Please see the rejections above.
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 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 4-5, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrabak in view of Cullmann (US 20240208331 A1).
Claim 4
Hrabak teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Hrabak does not teach:
the voice assistant architecture is configured with operation modes, the operation modes including at least one of a wait mode, a process mode, a confirmation mode, and an execution mode.
However, Cullmann teaches:
the voice assistant architecture is configured with operation modes, the operation modes including at least one of a wait mode, a process mode, a confirmation mode, and an execution mode (Cullmann - Paragraph 0036, 0040) “a pausing state currently represented by a first state Z1; a listening state Z2”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hrabak with the voice assistant architecture configured with operation modes of Cullmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Hrabak and Cullmann are both in the field of vehicle control through speakers and microphones. One would have been motivated to combine as this makes the voice assistant intuitive and understandable (Cullmann – Paragraph 0027).
Claim 5
The combination of Hrabak and Cullmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Hrabak does not teach:
reverting to the wait mode of the voice assistant architecture in response to the executed ADAS operation.
However, Cullmann teaches:
reverting to the wait mode of the voice assistant architecture in response to the executed ADAS operation (Cullmann - Paragraphs 0040, 0044) “if a task is completed, the visualization can also return to the state shown with respect to FIG. 2”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hrabak with the voice assistant architecture reverting to the wait mode of Cullmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Hrabak and Cullmann are both in the field of vehicle control through speakers and microphones. One would have been motivated to combine as this makes the voice assistant intuitive and understandable (Cullmann – Paragraph 0027).
Claims 13-14
All of the limitations of these claims have been examined with respect to claims 4-5. Please see the rejections above.
Claim 19
Hrabak teaches:
confirming, via a speaker system of the vehicle, the voice command (Hrabak - Paragraphs 0055, 0059) “The processor 420 may then generate a user request for confirmation”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5. Please see the rejections above.
Claim 20
All of the limitations of this claim have been examined with respect to claim 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrabak in view of Vertegaal (US 20250085774 A1).
Claim 8
Hrabak teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Hrabak does not teach:
confirming the voice command includes receiving gaze data.
However, Vertegaal teaches:
confirming the voice command includes receiving gaze data, at the virtual control module, from a driver monitoring system of the vehicle (Vertegaal - Paragraphs 0037, 0073-0075) “the spoken command must match pre-defined criteria (e.g., a displayed indicia such as text) associated with the display element that is the subject of a point of gaze in order for the command to be executed”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hrabak with confirming the voice command includes receiving gaze data of Vertegaal with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Hrabak and Vertegaal discuss control using voice and gaze inputs. One would have been motivated to combine as this reduces ambiguity and errors with inputs (Vertegaal – Paragraph 0075).
Claim 17
All of the limitations of this claim have been examined with respect to claim 8. Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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 Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights