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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/22/2026.
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-15 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0151050).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0151050), further in view of Su et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0046931).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Su et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0046931).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn. Additionally, the claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the Office Action “appears to equate Cherney’s playing a synthesized message for operator 116 to the recited ‘verbaliz[ing] the information’.” See Applicant Remarks page 2. The Applicant further argues that only the speech input of Cherney corresponds to the voice command equated to the “command from the operator of the work machine” which is provided to the natural language understanding logic, and that nothing in Cherney discloses that the synthesized message for the operator is provided to the natural language understanding logic. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Cherney does not disclose that the natural language understanding logic interprets the synthesized message for the operator to be played by the speech processing system. See Applicant Remarks page 3.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant states that the Office Action equates the playing of a synthesized message to an operator with the verbalizing of information as recited in the claims; however, the Applicant does not further explain why the synthesized message of Cherney is not a verbalization of information. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating a message to convey information regarding the vehicle surroundings constitutes a verbalization of information. Second, the Applicant appears to state that “only the speech input ... is provided to the natural language understanding logic,” and that the synthesized message is not provided to the natural language understanding logic, without further explaining why these elements of Cherney could not enable one having ordinary skill in the art to produce the recited limitations. Rather, the Applicant merely concludes that these elements are not disclosed by Cherney, and states that the recited limitations are distinct over Cherney without articulating how these elements would overcome the prior art. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Even if further explanation had been provided, Cherney expressly discloses that the operator provides a voice command through a microphone in interface, machine may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system which performs speech recognition and natural understanding on the voice input, wherein the sent information may be generated as a verbal message. Therefore, Cherney does disclose using a predetermined language model to interpret an acquired command and verbalized information.
The Applicant further argues that Cherney does not disclose that the natural language understanding logic is caused to interpret the synthesized message for the operator played by the speech processing system, and that therefore, Cherney does not teach “a hardware processor configured to cause a predetermined language model to interpret the acquired command and the verbalized information; and control movement of the work machine based on a result of the interpretation of the acquired command and the verbalized information by the predetermined language model.” The Applicant then concludes that for these reasons, the claimed invention is distinct over Cherney. See Applicant Remarks page 3.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. The Applicant appears to state that Cherney does not disclose using a natural language understanding logic to interpret the synthesized message for the operator played by the speech processing system, and concludes that Cherney does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Applicant does not appear to produce contrary evidence establishing that the reference being relied on would not enable a skilled artisan to produce the claimed invention. Even if explanation had been provided, Cherney expressly teaches a natural language understanding logic by disclosing a “speech recognition logic and natural language understanding logic 176” of the speech processing system 170 (see Cherney in at least ¶ 35 and Fig. 2), and further discloses that this speech processing system 170 uses speech recognition logic 176 and natural understanding logic 178 to identify, or interpret, what the operator intends based on speech input (see Cherney in at least ¶¶ 32 and 44-46). Further, Cherney expressly discloses generating a speech synthesis result of the information about the environment surrounding the vehicle, thereby interpreting the synthesized message for the operator, and outputting the result as a spoken message (see Cherney in at least ¶ 54), and controlling controllable subsystems based on the control signals (see Cherney in at least ¶ 56 and corresponding Fig. 3A). Therefore, Cherney discloses the claimed limitations.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the dependent claims. The Applicant further argues that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, but does not explain why the prior art references could not be combined to teach the recited limitations in view of obviousness. Additionally, the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected under the same rationale provided above. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015).
Regarding claim 1, Cherney discloses a work machine (Cherney Fig. 2 mobile construction machine 102) comprising:
a sensor (Cherney Fig. 2 sensors 138) configured to acquire information about an environment surrounding the work machine; (Cherney ¶ 29 discloses “one or more sensors 138” including “sensors that sense environmental characteristic,” also see Fig. 2)
a hardware processor part (Cherney ¶ 44 “Speech processing system 120”) configured to verbalize the information acquired by the sensor in natural language; (Cherney ¶ 44 discloses “If sensor 138 is a geographic position sensor, and it senses that machine 102 is approaching that boundary, or has crossed the boundary, it again may trigger speech processing system 120 to play a synthesized message [i.e., verbalize the information] to operator 116 indicating that machine 102 is approaching, or has crossed, the geographic boundary [i.e., information acquired by the environment information],” wherein the speech processing system “provides that to natural language understanding logic 178 which can generate a natural language understanding result,” see ¶ 32)
acquire a command from an operator of the work machine in natural language; and (Cherney ¶ 18 discloses that “operator 116 provides a voice command through a microphone in interface 114, machine 102 may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system 108 which performs speech recognition and natural understanding on the voice input” by the speech processing system 126)
cause a predetermined language model to interpret the acquired command and the verbalized information; (Cherney ¶ 35 discloses that “it may be that operator 116 provides a voice command such as “Turn on the windshield wipers” through a microphone in machine 102. In that case, trigger detector 168 illustratively detects that the operator has provided a voice command or a speech command that needs processing. Speech recognition logic and natural language understanding logic 176 and 178 [i.e., predetermined language model], respectively, generate outputs that can be provided to control logic 181 indicating that the user wishes to have the windshield wipers turned on.” Also see ¶ 37 “trigger detector 168 detects that speech command and speech processing system 170 performs the desired speech processing on the speech command so that control logic 181 can control the control signal generator 172 (and remote machine/system control logic 186) in order to use communication system 148 to send the appropriate control signals or information.” Also see ¶¶ 32 and 44.)
control movement of the work machine based on a result of the interpretation of the acquired command and the verbalized information by the predetermined language model. (Cherney ¶ 35 discloses “control logic 181 provides an output indicative of this to control signal generator 172, which, itself, can use on-board control logic 184 to control a windshield wiper subsystem ... to actuate a physical actuator to turn on the windshield wipers.” Also see ¶ 50 “Operator 116 can also provide a more complicated input such as “Change the grade level to X”, “Repeat dig and dump operations”, or a wide variety of other spoken inputs that result in control signals that on-board control logic 184 uses to control one or more controllable subsystems 154.” See Fig. 3A and 3B.)
Regarding claim 2, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to verbalize information of a working drawing in natural language, in addition to the information acquired by the sensor. (Cherney ¶ 44 discloses “sensor signal may trigger speech processing system 120 to play a synthesized message for operator 116 alerting operator 116 his or her machine's proximity to the other machine or object.” For example, if the machine 102 “is only to operate within a certain geographic boundary” and the sensor 138 “senses that machine 102 is approaching that boundary, or has crossed the boundary [i.e., information of a working drawing], it again may trigger speech processing system 120 to play a synthesized message to operator 116.” Also see ¶ 54. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the area within the geographic boundary constitutes a working drawing in accordance with Page 36 Lines 5-6 of the instant specification describing a “working drawing” to show a target object that the work machine is to work on.)
Regarding claim 5, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor (Cherney Fig. 2 speech processing trigger detector 168 “detects one or more [i.e., selected] triggers that indicate that speech processing is to be performed”) is further configured to select a first language model or a second language model as the predetermined language model based on details of the acquired command, (Cherney ¶ 32 discloses “Speech recognition logic 176 illustratively performs speech recognition on a speech input received by control system 152,” wherein the “operator 116 provides a voice command through a microphone in interface 114, machine 102 may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system 108 [i.e., selecting a predetermined language logic, i.e., model] which performs speech recognition,” see ¶ 18. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sending information to be processed in speech processing system 126 of remote server computing system 108 instead of speech processing system 123 of remote user computing system 106 involves selecting one predetermined language model over another.)
the first language model being provided outside the work machine, and configured to communicate with the work machine, (Cherney Fig. 1 depicts that the speech processing system 126 is remote from [i.e., outside of] the mobile construction machine 102 and is accessed “whenever speech recognition (or another speech service) needs to be performed,” see ¶ 40)
the second language model being incorporated in the work machine, and smaller in scale than the first language model, and (Cherney Fig. 1 depicts a second language model as speech processing system 123 located on the remote user computing system 106 [i.e., incorporated in the work machine], and a first language model as speech processing system 126 located on the remote server computing system 108. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a server computing system is equipped to handle larger amounts of data compared to a local user computing system; therefore, the second language model incorporated in the remote user computing system is smaller in scale than the first language model of the server computing system. See Micro Center “What's the Difference Between a Business PC and a Server?”)
control the movement of the work machine based on the interpretation by the selected first language model or second language model. (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 7, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the predetermined language model includes a first language model and a second language model, the first language model being provided outside the work machine and configured to communicate with the work machine, the second language model being incorporated in the work machine and smaller in scale than the first language model, and (Cherney Fig. 1 depicts a second language model as speech processing system 123 located on the remote user computing system 106 [i.e., incorporated in the work machine], and a first language model as speech processing system 126 located on the remote server computing system 108. Also see corresponding ¶¶ 21-22. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a server computing system is equipped to handle larger amounts of data compared to a local user computing system; therefore, the second language model incorporated in the remote user computing system is smaller in scale than the first language model of the server computing system. See Micro Center “What's the Difference Between a Business PC and a Server?”)
the hardware processor is further configured to classify the acquired command (Cherney ¶ 31 “Speech processing trigger detector 168 illustratively detects one or more triggers that indicate that speech processing is to be performed. For instance, trigger detector 168 may detect a voice command input by operator 116”) as one of: a first command for controlling the work machine to perform an urgent movement; a second command for controlling the work machine based on the interpretation of the acquired command by the first language model; or a third command for controlling the work machine based on the interpretation of the acquired command, and (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32, wherein the speech input generates “a natural language understanding result indicative of a semantic meaning [i.e., interpretation] of the speech input,” see ¶ 32.)
control the movement of the work machine based on the acquired command based on a result of the classification. (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 8, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
notify the operator of the movement of the work machine before causing the work machine to perform the movement in response to the acquired command, and (Cherney ¶ 105 discloses that “the control logic is configured to control the speech synthesis logic to generate, as the speech synthesis signal, a warning message” by using sensor input, which includes a voice command input by the operator, see ¶ 31, to “generate an audible, verbal warning or alert for operator 116” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a warning is a notification that occurs before .)
control the movement of the work machine based on the interpretation by the predetermined language model, in response to receiving a permission to cause the work machine to perform the movement from the operator notified of the movement. (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 9, Cherney discloses the operation assisting system comprising:
an sensor (Cherney Fig. 2 sensors 138) configured to acquire information about an environment surrounding the work machine; (Cherney ¶ 29 discloses “one or more sensors 138” including “sensors that sense environmental characteristic,” also see Fig. 2)
a hardware processor (Cherney ¶ 44 “Speech processing system 120”) configured to verbalize the information acquired by the sensor in natural language; (Cherney ¶ 44 discloses “If sensor 138 is a geographic position sensor, and it senses that machine 102 is approaching that boundary, or has crossed the boundary, it again may trigger speech processing system 120 to play a synthesized message [i.e., verbalize the information] to operator 116 indicating that machine 102 is approaching, or has crossed, the geographic boundary [i.e., information acquired by the environment information]”)
acquire a command from an operator of the work machine in natural language; (Cherney ¶ 18 discloses that “operator 116 provides a voice command through a microphone in interface 114, machine 102 may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system 108 which performs speech recognition and natural understanding on the voice input” by the speech processing system 126)
cause a predetermined language model to interpret the acquired command and the verbalized information; and (Cherney ¶ 35 discloses that “it may be that operator 116 provides a voice command such as “Turn on the windshield wipers” through a microphone in machine 102. In that case, trigger detector 168 illustratively detects that the operator has provided a voice command or a speech command that needs processing. Speech recognition logic and natural language understanding logic 176 and 178 [i.e., predetermined language model], respectively, generate outputs that can be provided to control logic 181 indicating that the user wishes to have the windshield wipers turned on.” Also see ¶ 37 “trigger detector 168 detects that speech command and speech processing system 170 performs the desired speech processing on the speech command so that control logic 181 can control the control signal generator 172 (and remote machine/system control logic 186) in order to use communication system 148 to send the appropriate control signals or information”)
control movement of the work machine based on a result of the interpretation of the acquired command and the verbalized information by the predetermined language model. (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32, wherein the speech input is provided to “natural language understanding logic 178 [i.e., a predetermined language model] which can generate a natural language understanding result indicative of a semantic meaning [i.e., interpretation] of the speech input,” see ¶ 32.)
Regarding claim 10, Cherney discloses the information processing device comprising:
a hardware processor (Cherney Fig. 1 speech processing system 126) configured to verbalize information about an environment surrounding a work machine in natural language; (Cherney ¶ 18 discloses that “operator 116 provides a voice command through a microphone in interface 114, machine 102 may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system 108 which performs speech recognition and natural understanding on the voice input” by the speech processing system 126)
acquire a command from an operator of the work machine in natural language; and (Cherney ¶ 18 discloses that “operator 116 provides a voice command through a microphone in interface 114, machine 102 may send information representative of the received voice command to remote server computing system 108 which performs speech recognition and natural understanding on the voice input” by the speech processing system 126)
a control part (Cherney in at least Fig. 2 control system 102) configured to control movement of the work machine a result of the interpretation of the acquired command and the verbalized information by the predetermined language model. (Cherney ¶ 7 discloses detecting a speech processing trigger and performing speech processing “such as speech recognition and natural language understanding),” such that “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 11, Cherney discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to operate as the information processing device as set forth in claim 10. (Cherney ¶ 79)
Regarding claim 12, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to generate a prompt for causing the predetermined language model to output a control command for controlling the movement of the work machine, based on the acquired command and the verbalized information; and (Cherney ¶ 32 discloses that “Speech recognition logic 176 illustratively performs speech recognition on a speech input received by control system 152,” such that “information can be processed by control logic 181 to identify what operator 116 intends based on the speech input” and “Control logic 181 can thus implement a control algorithm that is used to control machine 102 (or parts of machine 102) or other parts of the architecture 100 shown in FIG. 1, based upon a speech input by operator 116 or from another operator,” such as a “spoken input to control a controllable subsystem” including “Change the grade level to X”, “Repeat dig and dump operations,” see ¶ 50)
input the generated prompt to the predetermined language model to cause the predetermined language model to interpret the acquired command and the verbalized information. (Cherney ¶ 32 discloses that speech processing system 170 ” generates a recognition result based on the speech input and provides that to natural language understanding logic 178 which can generate a natural language understanding result indicative of a semantic meaning of the speech input” such that “speech synthesis logic 180 receives information indicative of the speech to be synthesized, and generates a synthesis result that can be provided to control logic 181 ... so that control signal generator 172 can generate the appropriate control signals based upon the speech processing results,” see ¶ 33)
Regarding claim 13, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to verbalize the acquired information in the natural language by applying the acquired information to a predefined text template. (Cherney ¶ 64 discloses that user actuatable input mechanisms can be text boxes or a drop-down menu [i.e., predefined text template], wherein they can be “actuated using speech commands,” thereby verbalizing the information provided by the natural language by applying the speech commands to corresponding predefined text templates.)
Regarding claim 14, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 13, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to verbalize the acquired information in the natural language by applying a type and location information of an object detected by the sensor included in the acquired information to the predefined text template. (Cherney ¶ 44 discloses that “when a proximity sensor senses that machine 102 is in close proximity to another machine (or where position signals from geographic position sensors indicate this) [i.e., a type and location], or to another object where a collision is possible, that sensor signal may trigger speech processing system 120 to play a synthesized message for operator 116 alerting operator 116 his or her machine's proximity to the other machine or object.”)
Regarding claim 15, Cherney discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to verbalize the acquired information in the natural language in response to acquiring the command from the operator in the natural language. (Cherney ¶ 53 discloses that in response to the spoken request of an operator 116 in a natural language, “The result of that computation can then be provided to speech synthesis logic 180 which can synthesize a spoken response to operator 116,” also see ¶ 54 disclosing that “it can generate a speech synthesis result that alerts operator 116 with a spoken message such as “You are within 100 meters of the geo-fence.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0151050).
Regarding claim 3, Cherney does not expressly disclose the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising:
determine whether the acquired command has high urgency or low urgency,
control the work machine to make a predetermined movement that conforms to the acquired command in response to determining that the acquired command has the high urgency; and
control the movement of the work machine based on the result of the interpretation by the predetermined language model in response to determining that the acquired command has the low urgency.
However, Liu discloses:
determine whether the acquired command has high urgency or low urgency, (Liu ¶ 52 discloses that processing unit 32 has a “dynamic priority order that determines the category of the input used to process the machine basic control commands” and provides for adjustments to importance and communication prioritization, wherein the input includes “input of a voice command of a human being,” see ¶ 51)
control the work machine to make a predetermined movement that conforms to the acquired command in response to determining that the acquired command has the high urgency; and (Liu ¶ 52 discloses that “Units with a higher priority order will process the input of the machine basic control command or the machine motion control command earlier than the units with a lower priority order,” wherein the machine basic control command and the machine motion control command includes a motion path instruction and a steering angle, see ¶ 47)
control the movement of the work machine based on the result of the interpretation by the predetermined language model in response to determining that the acquired command has the low urgency. (Liu ¶ 53 discloses that when a “control command operation cannot be executed by the program of the second operation, then, its priority will be lowered [i.e., determining that a command is of low urgency],” and that the “processing unit 32 will continue to take other operations,” including “executing a conditional request operation (conditional request) of one or more machining tasks of a specific industrial machinery 4” based on receiving an input of a voice command 11, see ¶ 36. Also see Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the commands of Cherney with determining whether an urgency of the command acquired by the command acquiring part is high or low, as disclosed by Liu, with reasonable expectation of success, to simulate human beings for specific scenario inputs of the machine basic control command or the machine motion control command to try to optimize the propensity of the first operation (Liu ¶ 53), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0151050), further in view of Su et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0046931).
Regarding claim 4, Cherney in combination with Liu does not expressly disclose the work machine according to claim 3, wherein:
the hardware processor is further configured to determine that the acquired command has the high urgency in response to determining that a predetermined word that indicates the high urgency is included in text of the acquired command. (Su ¶ 626 discloses “the user may end current multi-round voice interaction by using a high-priority voice instruction. In a possible example, for example, the first apparatus may record some high-priority instructions,” wherein the voice instruction may include a “hot word”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the commands of Cherney, of the combination of Cherney and Liu, with determining that the command is one of the high urgency when a predetermined word that indicates the high urgency is included in text of the command acquired by the command acquiring part, as disclosed by Su, with reasonable expectation of success, to optimize applicability of an operation of responding to the voice instruction of the user (Su ¶ 14) and to help balance accuracy and efficiency of voice recognition (Su ¶ 18), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherney et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0198015) in view of Su et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0046931).
Regarding claim 6, Cherney does not expressly disclose the work machine according to claim 5, wherein:
the selection part is further configured to select the predetermined language model between the first language model and the second language model based on at least one of a length of the command acquired by the command acquiring part or a rarity of a word included in the command.
However, Su discloses:
the selection part is further configured to select the predetermined language model between the first language model and the second language model based on at least one of a length of the command acquired by the command acquiring part or a rarity of a word included in the command. (Su ¶ 626 discloses “the user may end current multi-round voice interaction by using a high-priority voice instruction. In a possible example, for example, the first apparatus may record some high-priority instructions,” wherein the voice instruction may include a “hot word.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a hot word is a unique word with a “rarity” to be recognized as a keyword to implement the instruction.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the commands of Cherney, of the combination of Cherney and Liu, with selecting a predetermined language model based on a rarity of a word included in the command, as disclosed by Su, with reasonable expectation of success, to optimize applicability of an operation of responding to the voice instruction of the user (Su ¶ 14) and to shorten duration within which the first apparatus responds to a user instruction (Su ¶ 14), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
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 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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights