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 .
Claim Interpretation
As per Claim 13:
“the instructions to determine that the automated assistant should not execute the given vehicular command” is interpreted as having implied antecedent basis (instructions that, when executed, cause processor[s] to perform multiple functions naturally/implicitly/inherently include different portions of code that correspond to different ones of the multiple functions).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is not formally objected to, but it depends on claim 13 whereas method equivalent claim 4 depends on claim 2. Applicant can, at Applicant’s discretion, amend claim 14 to depend on claim 12.
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.
Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19, are 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.
As per Claim 6 (and similarly claim 16):
“while the user is located in the” in line 3 of claim 6 is an incomplete phrase that seems to be intended to be –while the user is located in the vehicle--.
As per Claim 9 (and similarly claim 19):
It is not clear if “that is associated with the vehicular device” in lines 2-3 of claim 9 is supposed to refer to “a display unit of a display”, “a display” (not the display unit), or “the in-vehicle computing device” (not likely since this would cause an antecedent basis issue)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per Claim(s) 1 (and similarly claim[s] 11, and consequently claim[s] 2-10 and 12-20 which depend on claim[s] 1 and 11), the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of all limitations in claim(s) 1, including (i.e. in combination with the remaining limitations in claim[s] 1) A method implemented by one or more processors comprising: receiving, from a user, a given spoken utterance, the given spoken utterance being provided while the user is located in a vehicle of the user, and the given spoken utterance being directed to an automated assistant executing at least in part at an in-vehicle computing device of the vehicle; identifying, based on processing the given spoken utterance, a given vehicular command that is included in the given spoken utterance, the given vehicular command including at least a target value for a vehicular device of the vehicle; determining, based on the given vehicular command, an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) query, the OEM query including a current unit for a current value of the vehicular device, the target value for the vehicular device, and/or a target unit for the target value; transmitting, to a given OEM component executing at least in part at the in-vehicle computing device of the vehicle and from the automated assistant, the OEM query; determining, based on responsive content received from the given OEM component that is responsive to the OEM query, whether the automated assistant should execute the given vehicular command; and in response to determining that the automated assistant should not execute the given vehicular command: refraining from causing the automated assistant to execute the given vehicular command; identifying, based on the responsive content, an alternative vehicular command, the alternative vehicular command including at least an alternative target value for the vehicular device, of the vehicle, that differs from the target value that is included in the spoken utterance; and causing the alternative vehicular command to be provided for presentation to the user via the in-vehicle computing device
I. OEM queries/requests/questions.
2019/0317735 teaches “Once the client 402 specifies the desired customizations, the user submits a request (e.g., OEM request) in step 1 to the web server 404. The web server 404 may include the following services: a web service that hosts the web application, a job service that queries job status and handles the uncompleted jobs (e.g., customization request for generation submitting) according to job state, and a generation/generating service that generates the customized resource files, configuration files, test cases, and the like, based on the submitted requests for customization” (paragraph 52)
II. automated assistant in a vehicle
2020/0356339 (Google, published more than 1 year before filing date of this application) teaches “For example, the automated assistant 228 can use the content data to generate suggestion data corresponding to a suggestion for the user to provide a command that relates to both the content of the first graphical element 212 and content of the second graphical element 216. In this way, the automated assistant 228 is acting within the bounds of the restrictions enforced by the OEM vehicle computing device 204 while still providing useful suggestions to promote usage of all functionality of the OEM vehicle computing device 204. For instance, the suggestion data can characterize a spoken utterance such as, “In some implementations, in response to the user tapping the third graphical element 216 and/or providing the identified spoken utterance to the OEM vehicle computing device 204, the automated assistant 228 can be invoked. Furthermore, in response to the spoken utterance, the automated assistant at 228 can initialize performance of one or more corresponding actions by the navigation application. For instance, in response to the automated assistant 228 receiving the spoken utterance, “Assistant where is the nearest grocery store?” The automated assistant 228 can generate command data to be provided to the launcher OEM vehicle application and/or a server device that is associated with the navigation application. The command data can characterize one or more commands that have been generated according to an API corresponding to the navigation application. When the launcher OEM application and/or the server device receives the command data, the launcher OEM application and/or the server device can initialize execution of the one or more commands via the navigation application, and/or any other third-party application 226” (paragraphs 33-34; see also Figure 2A)
III. translation/conversion of speech/voice/utterance/spoken into queries/questions/requests.
2007/0078658 teaches “A human-machine interface generation system comprises a voice recognition component that receives voice commands relating to generation of a human-machine interface within an industrial automation environment. The voice recognition component further translates the voice commands into machine code, such as into a query that conforms to a database query language” (Abstract).
11367524 teaches “Upon receiving a spoken command, voice processing module 348 may translate the voice command into a query or request to execute an app function. For example, voice processing module 348 may translate a natural language command into a structured query language and/or a language executable by processor 228” (col. 9, lines 29-34)
2012/0035924 teaches “A search engine 488 may receive user-entered textual or verbal queries from the mobile computing device 410, determine a set of internet-accessible documents that are responsive to the query, and provide to the device 410 information to display a list of search results for the responsive documents. In examples where a verbal query is received, the voice recognition service 472 may translate the received audio into a textual query that is sent to the search engine” (paragraph 109).
2002/0133571 teaches “when the audio request includes a voice request for a field of service desired by the user, converting the voice request into a database query language format utilizing interactive voice recognition software” (claim 2).
IV. controlling vehicle devices using speech.
2023/0206915 teaches “Cabin Temperature. This example can be used with the phrase “it's too hot” or “it's too cold.” For example, if the user states “Ok Hound, it's too hot” the virtual assistant can send, to the proactive voice platform 310, RequestInfo->CarStatus->CurrentTemperature=degrees, in order to determine the current temperature within the vehicle. The virtual assistant 302 can then state “Setting the temperature to XXX degrees” (current temperature minus 10 degrees) and set the cabin fan of the vehicle to “auto” mode. The virtual assistant 302 can then respond with the following dynamic responses: (i) ClientActionSucceededResult: “Setting the temperature to XXX degrees”, (ii) ClientActionFailedResult: “Couldn't set the temperature” and (iii) TemperatureAtMaxColdResult: “Temperature already at max cold temperature.” Once the temperature reaches target temperature, the virtual assistant 302 can send, to the proactive voice platform 310, a text query “hounda_agent_climate” and RequestInfo->CarStatus->CurrentTemperature=degrees. The virtual assistant 302 can then state “Is this a comfortable temperature?” If the user responds with “Yes”, then the virtual assistant 302 can state “I'm glad you like it.” However, if the user responds with “No”, then the virtual assistant 302 can state “Ok, I'm sorry. Would you like it hotter or colder?” If the user responds with “Colder”, then the virtual assistant 302 can state “Ok, lowering the temperature by a few degrees.”” (paragraph 107). This reference describes where a temperature is already at max cold temperature (suggesting that the system cannot follow the user’s instructions).
2013/0325474 teaches “For example, FIG. 5 shows motor vehicle particular party speech processing into motor vehicle setting change command using received adaptation data module 526 processing speech from the particular party (e.g., the user) into one or more commands to change a setting of the motor vehicle (e.g., "set temperature to 68 degrees," "adjust driver side mirror clockwise and up") using the speech recognition module of the target device to which the received adaptation data (e.g., a word pronunciation guide) has been applied” (paragraph 195).
2020/0342876 teaches “For example, the original voice input “I'm cold” may be passed to the service 50_1 of the manufacturer of the transportation vehicle 40 as “hello Volkswagen, please set the temperature in the vehicle higher.” The user subsequently receives the response “I've set the temperature in the vehicle two degrees higher.” The original voice input “Turn on the heating system at home” is correspondingly passed to the smart home solution 50_2 as “hey Pia, turn on the heating system at home.” The user subsequently receives, for example, the response “I've turned on the heating system.”” (paragraph 86).
V. ignoring a user’s command due to danger/hazard.
2018/0126986 teaches “if the user fails to perceive a dangerous situation, which is recognized by the vehicle, and inputs a wrong command, it is safe that the vehicle ignores the user's command and keeps travelling autonomously”
Upon further search (in response to the filing of Application 18/991,953):
2005/0229173 teaches “Firmware update commands are OEM (original equipment manufacturer) specific commands which are available via any interface according to the BMC specification” (paragraph 23). The OEM commands do not appear to be determined based on a vehicular command included in a spoken utterance.
2005/0289559 teaches “In another embodiment (29), the invention provides the apparatus in (25), wherein the unique capabilities instructions include an original equipment manufacturer OEM instruction which takes as a parameter a manufacturer ID scalar value, a parameter block specifying the operation to be performed and all the parameters needed to carry out a particular unique application program interface to the unique capabilities” (paragraph 724). The OEM instruction does not appear to be determined based on a vehicular command included in a spoken utterance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, and 13, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,753, hereafter Parent Patent 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of this application are rendered obvious by claims of Parent Patent 1.
Claim 1 is broader than Claim 5 of Parent Patent 1 (where claim 5 of Parent Patent 1 is interpreted as incorporating the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1). More specifically, Claim 1 is substantively identical to Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1 except where the last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1 is replaced by the limitations of Claim 5 of Parent Patent 1 (such that Claim 1 recites the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 of Parent Patent 1 except for the last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1 and therefore Claim 1 is broader than Claim 5 of Parent Patent 1).
Claim 11 is suggested by Claim 5 of Parent Patent 1 (Claim 11 is a system equivalent of Claim 1 and Claim 5 of Parent Patent 1, which teaches a method, also suggests its corresponding system equivalent).
Claims 3 and 13 correspond to Claim 6 of Parent Patent 1.
Claim 4 corresponds to Claim 7 of Parent Patent 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4249. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM -8:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICHEMOND DORVIL can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EY 6/25/2026
/ERIC YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights