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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 7-12 & 14 are cancelled and claims 16-27 are newly added leaving claims 1-6, 13 and 15-27 pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 13 and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The detailed description of the invention discloses the following matters with the Paragraph numbers listed referring to the USPGPUB 2025/0273206.
Paragraph [0033] "At the acquiring step S103, scenario description information related to the scenario to be created may be acquired. The scenario description information may be acquired in various possible ways.".
Paragraph [0034] "In one embodiment, information related to scenario creation is extracted from the speech input as the scenario description information. This involves the conversion from audio (speech) to text. In this regard, there are various existing implementation techniques, such as ASR. This also involves a multi-intent understanding of the text. In this regard, there are various existing implementation techniques, such as NLU.”
Paragraph [0058] “In terms of acquiring scenario description information, information related to scenario creation may be extracted from the speech input of the user as scenario description information. When necessary, the scenario description information may be acquired through an interactive dialogue, that is, a speech output apparatus (not shown) of the vehicle queries the user for the information related to scenario creation in a speech manner, and the speech reply of the user to the querying is received through the speech receiving apparatus of the vehicle. The information related to scenario creation is then extracted from the reply as scenario description information through the speech processing apparatus of the vehicle. For further details, reference may be made to the related descriptions above. In this case, the speech receiving apparatus, the speech processing apparatus, and the speech output apparatus of the vehicle constitute an interactive dialogue system (which may also be referred to as a “vehicle scenario dialogue system”).”
In the above description, a specific method for extracting information related to scenario creation from voice input as scene description information is unclear. In addition, paragraph [0058] describes that " For further details, reference may be made to the related descriptions above.", but even if "related descriptions above." is referred to, it cannot be understood by what method the information related to the scenario creation is extracted from the voice input as the scenario description information.
Regarding "generating a scenario file for scenario creation", the following is disclosed in the detailed description of the invention:
In paragraph [0038], " At the generating step S104, a scenario file for scenario creation may be generated on the basis of the acquired scenario description information. In one embodiment, the acquired scenario description information is further processed to obtain the scenario file. For example, as shown, the generating step S104 may include steps S1041, S1042, S1043, S1044, and S1045. Nonetheless, the present disclosure may anticipate generating the scenario file directly from the acquired scenario description information.”
Paragraph [0039] " At step S1041, preliminary scenario data is generated on the basis of the acquired scenario description information, the preliminary scenario data indicating: (1) an expected scenario creation condition; (2) at least one expected scenario construction element; and (3) an expected control mode in which each expected scenario construction element is expected to be controlled.”
All of " S1042, S1043, S1044 and S1045" are processes on the premise of " preliminary scenario data", but from the description of the detailed description of the invention, it cannot be understood what format the "preliminary scenario data" is and how to process the scenario description information to obtain it. In addition, a method for directly generating a scenario file from the acquired scenario description information cannot be understood from the description of the detailed description of the invention.
Applying the undue experimentation factors as listed in MPEP 2164.01(a) and weighing them, the Examiner finds that, even based on the common technical knowledge at the time of the filing of the present application, it can be said that in order to find out how a person skilled in the art can implement the above-mentioned matters, it is necessary to perform trial and error beyond what can be expected of a person skilled in the art.
Therefore, the detailed description of the invention of this application is not clearly and sufficiently described to the extent that a person skilled in the art could implement the inventions according to Claims 1-6, 13 and 15-27.
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 1-6, 13 and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite creating a scenario file from a verbal description, which is a mental process that a person with pencil and paper could perform. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements are a vehicle, which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and generic computer components performing generic computing functions, which have been held to not amount to significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a vehicle, which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and generic computer components performing generic computing functions, which have been held to not amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims simply recite additional steps in the mental process leading from hearing the verbal description to generating the scenario file, and all are performable by a person having pencil and paper.
The Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or an Abstract Idea? YES
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the Judicial Exception? NO
Therefore, the claims are not subject matter eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 13 and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weingärtner (German Patent Application Publication 102023103087).
As per claims 1, 13 and 15, Weingärtner discloses:
A vehicle, comprising a computer device, the computer device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores computer instructions on a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium that, when executed by the processor (Abstract and Paragraphs [0050] & [0052] - The proposed solution relates in particular to a method for software-supported implementation of a control program in an electronic control device (SE) of a vehicle (F), wherein at least one function of one or more components (1a-1d, 10-14, T1, T2) of the vehicle (F) can be controlled by at least one processor of the electronic control device (SE) via the execution of instructions contained in the control program, and a user interface (UI) for voice input is provided on a computer device (7, 8.1, 8.2) for creating the instructions for the control program.), cause the processor to:
receive a speech input from a user of the vehicle (Paragraph [0004] - With the help of a voice input recorded via the user interface, data elements can be linked together that individually or jointly represent at least one electronically controllable function of one or more components of the vehicle. By linking the data elements in a voice-controlled manner, a sequence scenario is defined for the vehicle in which the at least one function is controlled.);
parse the speech input and determine whether the speech input indicates a scenario creation intention to create a scenario (Paragraphs [0007-0010] – “The voice input can, but does not have to, include one or more voice commands that contain the names of the linked data elements or is a sequence of spoken control commands.” & “The transmission of the one command sequence or the multiple command sequences that are generated for the implementation of the control program in the vehicle can then take place via an interface coupled to the electronic control device, which enables wireless or wired reception of the command sequence(s), for example as part of a control file. For example, a user can define a sequence scenario using voice control via a software application outside the vehicle and then subsequently transmit this sequence scenario via an interface to the electronic control device provided in the vehicle for implementation.”);
in the event of a positive determination result, acquire scenario description information related to the scenario to be created (Paragraphs [0005-0008] - Basically, user-side voice input, which can be used to link data elements that individually or jointly represent at least one electronically controllable function of one or more components of the vehicle, is understood to mean voice input in natural language. The voice input can, but does not have to, include one or more voice commands that contain the names of the linked data elements or is a sequence of spoken control commands. In the present case, a voice input includes in particular a user input in natural language that describes at least one desired function to be performed and/or a target state of the at least one function to be performed. The linking of the data elements based on the recorded voice input can thus include, for example, a computer-assisted interpretation of the voice input, so that the data elements to be linked are the result of the interpretation of the voice input. For example, an algorithm provided for this purpose, which interprets the voice input, then links the data elements without the data elements having to be explicitly dictated.); and
on the basis of the scenario description information, generate a scenario file for scenario creation (Paragraphs [0005-0008] - The at least one generated command sequence comprises at least one data record in a data format that can be read by the control device, so that the command sequence can be interpreted by the electronic control device to specify control commands and/or signals for implementing the sequence scenario. In principle, the command sequence can be stored as a data record in an existing database or in a database that is newly created when the command sequence is generated. Alternatively or additionally, the generation of the command sequence can be accompanied by the generation and storage of a control file containing the command sequence.).
Claim 1 is directed to using the vehicle of claim 13, so is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer readable storage medium containing instructions to cause a processor to control a vehicle in the same way was the vehicle of claim 13, so is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 2, 16 and 21, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 15 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
recognizing words contained in the speech input and determining whether the words indicate a scenario creation intention to create a scenario (Paragraph [0055] - "Define the scenario 'night driving'").
As per claims 3, 17, 22 and 26, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 13 and 15 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
in the event of a positive determination result, extracting, from the speech input, information related to scenario creation as the scenario description information related to the scenario to be created (Paragraphs [0055-0057] – settings are taken from the voice instructions); and/or in the event of a positive determination result, querying the user for information related to scenario creation, and extracting, from the reply of the user to the querying, information related to scenario creation as the scenario description information related to the scenario to be created.
As per claims 4, 18 and 23, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 15 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
generating preliminary scenario data on the basis of the scenario description information, the preliminary scenario data indicating an expected scenario creation condition, one or more expected scenario construction elements, and an expected control mode in which each of the expected scenario construction elements is expected to be controlled; checking whether controlling each of the one or more expected scenario construction elements in a corresponding expected control mode conforms to a predetermined standard related to vehicle control safety; in the event of a negative check result, optimizing the preliminary scenario data to generate final scenario data; and on the basis of the final scenario data, generating the scenario file for scenario creation (Paragraphs [0030-0032] – “In one embodiment, the sequence scenario defined with the voice input is checked for plausibility and/or any errors by a software application providing the at least one command sequence before the at least one command sequence is generated. This includes, for example, automatically checking for any errors in a link between data elements or checking any intended trigger conditions for errors.” & “Similarly, the software application can, for example, check whether a condition is provided that the vehicle seat is occupied when the backrest of a vehicle seat is folded down in the process scenario. However, a backrest should be folded down precisely when a vehicle seat is not occupied.”).
As per claims 5, 19 and 24, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claims 4, 18 and 23 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
in the event of a negative check result, providing the user with a suggestion related to scenario creation, receiving feedback from the user on the suggestion, optimizing the preliminary scenario data on the basis of the feedback, and generating the final scenario data on the basis of the optimized preliminary scenario data; and/or in the event of a negative check result, optimizing automatically the preliminary scenario data to generate the final scenario data (Paragraphs [0030-0032]).
As per claims 6, 20 and 25, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claims 4, 18 and 23 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
the final scenario data indicates an actual scenario creation condition, one or more actual scenario construction elements, and an actual control mode in which each of the actual scenario construction elements is actually to be controlled, the scenario creation method further comprising: when the actual scenario creation condition is satisfied, using the scenario file to create a scenario in the vehicle such that each of the one or more actual scenario construction elements is controlled in a corresponding actual control mode in the created scenario (Paragraphs [0030-0032]).
As per claim 27, Weingärtner discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Weingärtner further discloses:
the final scenario data indicates an actual scenario creation condition, one or more actual scenario construction elements, and an actual control mode in which each of the actual scenario construction elements is actually to be controlled, the scenario creation method further comprising: when the actual scenario creation condition is satisfied, using the scenario file to create a scenario in the vehicle such that each of the one or more actual scenario construction elements is controlled in a corresponding actual control mode in the created scenario (Paragraphs [0030-0032] & [0055]).
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights