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 .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 19 December 2024 in reference to application 18/985,960. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said member-selection signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 16 recite receiving an audio input from an occupant in said vehicle, selecting a domain-specific member from a federation of domain-specific members based at least in part on said audio input, receiving content from said selected domain-specific member, and using said content for providing audio output responsive to said audio input.
The limitation of receiving an audio input from an occupant in said vehicle, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses to a person listening to a user speak a command.
The limitation of selecting a domain-specific member from a federation of domain-specific members based at least in part on said audio input, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” language, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person deciding which domain specific resource to use given the domain of the listened to user request.
The limitation of receiving content from said selected domain-specific member, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the person reading or otherwise perceiving output from a selected source.
The limitation of using said content for providing audio output responsive to said audio input, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” language, “using” in the context of this claim encompasses the person speaking an answer to the user based on what the read or otherwise perceived from the selected source.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additionally “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator”. These components are recited at a high-level of generality that they could be generic software operating on a device, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “an automotive assistant” and “an arbitrator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites a first domain-specific member of said federation, wherein said first domain-specific member is embedded in said vehicle. However a person could select and receive information from a member embedded in a vehicle, such as a radio screen or HVAC control screen and receive information from such a device. Similar to above, no additional elements are recited that amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further recites said domain-specific members of said federation comprise a large language-model. However a person could select and receive information from an LLM, but choosing an LLM, providing a prompt, and reading a reply. Similar to above, no additional elements are recited that amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further recites wherein said domain-specific members of said federation comprise a first domain-specific member and a second domain-specific member, wherein said first domain-specific member is embedded in said vehicle and wherein said second domain-specific member is at a remote server. However a person could select and receive information from a member embedded in a vehicle, such as a radio screen or HVAC control screen and receive information from such a device. A person could also select and receive a member from a remote server by selecting a website and reading information from the website. Similar to above, no additional elements are recited that amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further recites wherein said arbitrator comprises a large language-model. However LLMs are well-known and the LLM is recited at a high level of generality such that it can be considered a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further recites wherein wherein said arbitrator comprises a graph neural network. However graph neural networks are well-known and the graph neural network is recited at a high level of generality such that it can be considered a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 further recites wherein s wherein said arbitrator comprises a neural network. However graph neural networks are well-known and the neural network is recited at a high level of generality such that it can be considered a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible
Claim 8 further recites a query divider, wherein said audio input includes a compound query that comprises plural atomic queries, wherein said query divider partitions said compound query into first and second atomic queries, wherein said arbitrator selects a first domain-specific member of said federation for providing content responsive to said first atomic query, and wherein said arbitrator selects a second domain-specific member of said federation for providing content responsive to said second atomic query. However the query divider is recited high level of generality such that it can be considered program instructions to perform the various steps, and thus a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. The recited steps can be performed by a person recognizing the multiple portions of a compound query, and selecting a member to complete each portion of the query. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further recites a multiplexer configured to receive a member-selection signal that is indicative of said selected member of said federation, wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said multiplexer, wherein said multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation. However the multiplexer is recited high level of generality such that it can be considered program instructions to perform the various steps, and thus a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. The recited steps can be performed by a person interacting with a selected member and for instance in the case of an LLM, prompting the LLM. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further recites first and second multiplexer configured to receive said member-selection signal, wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said first multiplexer, wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said second multiplexer, wherein said first multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation, and wherein said second multiplexer receives content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation and provides said content to automotive assistant.. However the multiplexers are recited at a high level of generality such that it can be considered program instructions to perform the various steps, and thus a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. The recited steps can be performed by a person interacting with a selected member and for instance in the case of an LLM, prompting the LLM and receiving a response. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 further recites a response generator and a text-to-speech converter, wherein said response generator receives said content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation and generates a response based on said content and wherein said text-to-speech converter receives said response. However the response generator is recited at a high level of generality such that it can be considered program instructions to perform the various steps, and thus a generic computer component, and thus cannot amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. The recited steps can be performed by a person speaking aloud the content. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further recites said vehicle. However the vehicle itself is a generic vehicle and performs no recited functions in the claims and thus can be considered an extra-solutional element, which does not amount to significantly more than or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further recites said infotainment system. However the infotainment itself is a generic infotainment and performs no recited functions in the claims and thus can be considered an extra-solutional element, which does not amount to significantly more than or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 further recites wherein said arbitrator is one that has been trained jointly with a domain-specific member from said federation of domain-specific members. However joint training of models is a known concept (see the art rejection below) and thus the arbitrator can still be considered a generic computer component. Similar to above, no additional elements are recited that amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 further recites wherein said arbitrator is one that has been trained severally with a domain-specific member from said federation of domain-specific members. However training of models separately is a known concept (see the art rejection below) and thus the arbitrator can still be considered a generic computer component. Similar to above, no additional elements are recited that amount to significantly more or provide a practical application for the abstract idea. Accordingly the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spiewla et al. (US PAP 2020/0388285).
Consider claim 1, Spiewla teaches An apparatus for responding to an audio input provided by an occupant of a vehicle (abstract), said apparatus comprising
an automotive assistant that executes on an infotainment system of said vehicle (00319-21, figure 1, infotainment system in vehicle), said automotive assistant comprising:
an arbitrator that is configured to receive said audio input provided by said occupant (0342, receiving user request) and, based at least in part on said audio input, to select a domain-specific member from a federation of domain-specific members for providing information pertinent to responding to said audio input (0342-43, determining domain and sending request to appropriate agent assigned to domain),
wherein said automotive assistant is configured to receive content from said selected domain-specific member and to provide audio output to respond to said audio input provided by said occupant, said audio output being based at least in part on said content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation of domain-specific members (0343 outputting response from selected domain agent to user 0368, may be spoken responses).
Consider claim 2, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a first domain-specific member of said federation, wherein said first domain-specific member is embedded in said vehicle (0337, one or more virtual assistance may be embedded in infotainment system).
Consider claim 4, Spiewla teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said domain-specific members of said federation comprise a first domain-specific member and a second domain-specific member, wherein said first domain-specific member is embedded in said vehicle and wherein said second domain-specific member is at a remote server (0337, one or more virtual assistance may be embedded in infotainment system and one or more may be on a remote server).
Consider claim 8, Spiewla teaches he apparatus of claim 1, wherein said arbitrator comprises a query divider, wherein said audio input includes a compound query that comprises plural atomic queries, wherein said query divider partitions said compound query into first and second atomic queries, wherein said arbitrator selects a first domain-specific member of said federation for providing content responsive to said first atomic query, and wherein said arbitrator selects a second domain-specific member of said federation for providing content responsive to said second atomic query (figure 7, 0351-55, compound request and split into portions, domains determined for each request and routed to appropriate agents assigned to each domain).
Consider claim 11, Spiewla teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said automotive assistant further comprises a response generator and a text-to-speech converter, wherein said response generator receives said content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation and generates a response based on said content and wherein said text-to-speech converter receives said response (343 outputting response from selected domain agent to user 0368, may be spoken responses, 0376, TTS processing to generate speech outputs).
Consider claim 12, Spiewla teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising said vehicle (see figure 1, built into vehicle).
Consider claim 13, Spiewla teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising said infotainment system (00319-21, figure 1, infotainment system in vehicle).
Consider claim 16, Spiewla teaches 1 method carried out by a processing system that comprises an automotive assistant that executes on an infotainment system of a vehicle (abstract, figure 1, infotainment system in vehicle), said method comprising causing said automotive assistant to carry out steps comprising:
receiving an audio input from an occupant in said vehicle (0342, receiving user request),
selecting a domain-specific member from a federation of domain-specific members based at least in part on said audio input (figure 7, 0351-55, compound request and split into portions, domains determined for each request and routed to appropriate agents assigned to each domain),
receiving content from said selected domain-specific member (0343 response from selected domain agent), and
using said content for providing audio output responsive to said audio input (0343 outputting response from selected domain agent to user 0368, may be spoken responses).
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) 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiewla in view of Guo et al. (US Patent 12,424,209).
Consider claim 3, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said domain-specific members of said federation comprise a large language-model.
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein said domain-specific members of said federation comprise a large language-model (figure 1, LLM agent, also see col 2 lines 45-55, agents may be LLM agents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use an LLM agent as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla in order to taken advantage of a powerful machine learning tool that can improve user request accuracy.
Consider claim 5, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said arbitrator comprises a large language-model.
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein said arbitrator comprises a large language-model (col 4, language models 145, 155, 180 may be LLMs, in figure 1, these are all part of the orchestrator which performs arbitration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use an LLM agent as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla in order to taken advantage of a powerful machine learning tool that can improve user request accuracy.
Consider claim 7, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said arbitrator comprises a neural network.
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein said arbitrator comprises a neural network (col 4, language models 145, 155, 180 may be LLMs, in figure 1, these are all part of the orchestrator which performs arbitration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use an LLM agent as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla in order to taken advantage of a powerful machine learning tool that can improve user request accuracy.
Consider claim 9, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said automotive assistant further comprises a multiplexer configured to receive a member-selection signal that is indicative of said selected member of said federation, wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said multiplexer (0345 and figure 2, transceiver 238 used to send requests to virtual assistants, and thus it must know which assistant was selected)
Spiewla does not specifically teach wherein said multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation.
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein said multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation (col 20, lines 6-27, LLM agents can be configured to receive special prompts generated by orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use prompts for the LLM agents as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla so that the LLM agents can be properly used according to their function and return accurate results.
Consider claim 10, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said automotive assistant further comprises first and second multiplexer configured to receive said member-selection signal, wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said first multiplexer (0345 and figure 2, transceiver 238 used to send requests to virtual assistants, and thus it must know which assistant was selected) .
Spiewla does not specifically teach wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said second multiplexer, wherein said first multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation, and wherein said second multiplexer receives content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation and provides said content to automotive assistant.
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein each of said domain-specific members of said federation is in data communication with said second multiplexer (col 17 lines 29- col 18 line 19, shortlister LM receives action response data from agents), wherein said first multiplexer provides a prompt generated by said arbitrator to said selected domain-specific member of said federation (col 20, lines 6-27, LLM agents can be configured to receive special prompts generated by orchestrator), and wherein said second multiplexer receives content from said selected domain-specific member of said federation and provides said content to automotive assistant (col 17 lines 29- col 18 line 19, shortlister LM receives action response data from agents and determines most relevant responses to be used to reply to user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use prompts for the LLM agents as well as ranking responses from selected agents as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla so that the LLM agents can be properly used according to their function and return accurate results.
Consider claim 15, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said arbitrator is one that has been trained severally with a domain-specific member from said federation of domain-specific members..
In the same field of request arbitration, Gao teaches wherein said arbitrator comprises a neural network (col 5 lines 51-67, language models including those that are part of the orchestrator are fine tuned for individual tasks, i.e. severally.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a severally trained model as taught by Gao in the system of Spiewla in order to allow easy fine tuning of the model to perform the needed tasks (Gao Col 5 lines 51-67).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiewla in view of Sarikaya et al. (US Patent 12,614,542).
Consider claim 6, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said arbitrator comprises a graph neural network.
In the same field of arbitration, Sarikaya teaches wherein said arbitrator comprises a graph neural network (col 4 lines 30-65, using a GNN to determine appropriate actions to be taken by assistant.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a GNN as taught by Sarikaya in the system of Spiewla in order to better account for a user’s situational context (Sarikaya abstract).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiewla in view of Larkin et al. (US PAP 2024/0112093).
Consider claim 14, Spiewla teaches The apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein said arbitrator is one that has been trained jointly with a domain-specific member from said federation of domain-specific members.
In the same field of orchestration, Larkin teaches wherein said arbitrator is one that has been trained jointly with a domain-specific member from said federation of domain-specific members (0018-20, orchestration model has been jointly trained with various sub models).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use joint training as taught by Larkin the system of Spiewla in order to optimize overall system performance (Larkin 0020).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bobbili et al. (US Patent 11,763,809) teaches a similar method of using multiple members and would also quality as a 102 on many of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights