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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 12/30/2024. As such, claims 1-7 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the voice command acceptance unit the voice command acceptance unit accepts,” this is repetitive and grammatically incorrect. The claim should read “wherein the voice command acceptance unit accepts”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than reciting “a voice command acceptance unit”, “a detection unit”, “an execution control unit” nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to detecting voice command, which is a mental process that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
a voice command acceptance unit that accepts a voice command; (e.g., a human listening for a voice command.)
a detection unit that acquires information on a language that is used by a person who speaks a voice command; (e.g., the human listening and determine the language used person making the voice command.)
and an execution control unit that, when the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command, executes a function with respect to the accepted voice command, wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if a recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, (e.g., after determining the language is one that the human can understand, evaluate if the voice command is clear enough, if it is, then perform an action associated with the voice command. Like if the user normally speak in English, and the human listener would have a higher expectation of the clarity of the pronunciation.)
and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. (e.g., when the human determine that the user is using a different language than the one they normally use, the human can still perform the requested task as long as the command is very clear, higher threshold than the normally spoken language by the user. For example, if the user doesn’t normally speak French, but decided to practice using French to provide a command, and the human listener would be more tolerant and not expect perfect pronunciation.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does 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 limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“a voice command acceptance unit”, “a detection unit”, “an execution control unit”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“a voice command acceptance unit”, “a detection unit”, “an execution control unit”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 7 recites a method claim that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 depend from independent claims 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 from above.
Claim 2 further comprising: wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable by being registered as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable by being registered as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. (e.g., the human listener register by mentally noting or write it down on piece of paper that English is the primary language, and listens for instructions given in English.)
Claim 3 further recite: a setting unit that sets a language by which a voice command is to be accepted by the voice command acceptance unit, wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable by being set, by the setting unit, as the language by which a voice command is to be accepted, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable by being set, by the setting unit, as the language by which a voice command is to be accepted, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. (e.g., the human listener being more tolerant if the user is speaking in a foreign language than if they were speaking in their native language. Setting could be determine by the human listener for specific user, like human listener knows English is the default language for a specific user and Spanish is their secondary language and make mental note of it when determining voice command recognition accuracy.)
Claim 4 further comprising: wherein the detection unit acquires information on the language that is used by the person based on utterance of the person. (e.g., the human listens to what the user says, and figures out what the language is.)
Claim 5 further recites: wherein the voice command acceptance unit the voice command acceptance unit accepts, with respect to one of a highly emergent voice command and a highly instantaneous voice command, the voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. (e.g., if the voice command is about calling for emergency or 911, then the human operator or listener will not be as concern about accuracy of the voice command and go ahead and call for help instead of concern about perfect pronunciation in time of urgency.)
In sum, claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-5 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-5: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is not rejected under 101 because the claim appears to recite a specific or practical implementation of a dash cam voice activated application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a voice command acceptance unit”, “a detection unit”, “an execution control unit” in claims 1-7 and “a setting unit” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-6 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.
Claims 4-6 all recites: “The voice command acceptance apparatus according to any one of claims 1,” it is not clear what “any one of claim 1” means, like any one of elements, or any steps of claim 1, and since there is only one claim 1, is not understood what is the scope of “any one of claim 1” entails, like any portion of claim 1? For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret it like “The voice command acceptance apparatus according to claims 1”
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Haddad (US 20200349936), in view of Choi US (20230367461).
Regarding Claim 1, Al Haddad discloses: 1. A voice command acceptance apparatus comprising: a voice command acceptance unit that accepts a voice command; ([0037] The operating device 12 may, for example, be configured to operate a navigation system and/or multiple convenience systems of the motor vehicle 10 in response to the operational action of the user. Upon detection of a voice input, the exemplary microphone may generate an operating signal capable of describing the voice input, and the operating signal may be transmitted to the microprocessor 11, for example. The microprocessor may recognize the detected voice input as such upon receipt of the operating signal, for example, at operation step S1.)
a detection unit that acquires information on a language that is used by a person who speaks a voice command; ([0040] As a voice input, he may therefore simply say any sentence, or any word in, for example, his native language. This voice input is recognized by the speech recognition and language determination device 14 (S1).)
and an execution control unit that, when the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command, executes a function with respect to the accepted voice command, wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if a recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, ([0042] In some embodiments, for the checking process S2 a threshold value may be predefined in the data memory 15, which may indicate, for example, what minimum percentage of the voice input should be in the first operating language so that the first operating language is considered to be recognized. This can be helpful, for example, if the user speaks the first operating language but uses foreign words when speaking the operating language.)
and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. ([0051] Alternatively, if the user used the operating device 12 in the first operating language, and if, for example, his pronunciation is not yet good enough, the speech recognition and language determination device 14 may determine or ascertain that only up to 80% of his voice inputs were correctly recognized (S1). In the speech recognition and language determination device 14, a threshold value may then be stored, capable of describing that the operation steps of the method according to the disclosure are carried out at a percentage of, for example, less than 90% of the recognized voice inputs.)
Al Haddad does not appear to explicitly disclose dual thresholds.
Choi in the related art discloses: and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. ([0163] Although not shown in FIG. 8, different recognition sensitivities or recognition thresholds may be applied to recognition engines that recognize different languages even though the same algorithm is used.)
Al Haddah and Choi are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al Haddad to combine the teaching of Choi, because satisfaction with the speech recognition function of various users can be increased if recognition sensitivity of speech recognition system can be adjusted (Choi, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Al Haddad and Choi disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Al Haddad further discloses: wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable by being registered as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, ([0012] The disclosure is based on the concept of being able to confirm, after a determination of the language spoken by the user in the particular language, i.e., in the language in which the user has spoken, that he wishes to change the operating language of the operating device to the language he has just spoken. This eliminates the need to navigate through an operating menu to switch the language. In addition, the user also has the option of remaining in the original operating language.)and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable by being registered as the voice command, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. ([0013] The method according to the disclosure serves to operate a motor vehicle having an operating device which, in a first operating mode, is configured to be used in a first, preset operating language and which, in a second operating mode, is configured to be used in a second operating language. In other words, a first operating language is specified in the first operating mode, and in the second operating mode a second operating language is specified, which may preferably differ from the first operating language.)
Choi also disclose register language as voice command. ([0013] The display device may obtain speech data including a voice to be registered, and generate a starting word recognition engine corresponding to the voice to be registered by retraining the starting word recognition engine using the obtained speech data. [0163] Although not shown in FIG. 8, different recognition sensitivities or recognition thresholds may be applied to recognition engines that recognize different languages even though the same algorithm is used. For example, a Korean-based starting word recognition engine may have a range of starting word recognition scores of 1 to 13, and an English-based starting word recognition engine may have a range of starting word recognition scores of 3 to 21. Different ranges of starting word recognition scores may mean that the recognition thresholds or recognition sensitivities used to determine starting word recognition are different.)
Regarding Claim 3, Al Haddad and Choi disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Al Haddad further discloses: further comprising: a setting unit that sets a language by which a voice command is to be accepted by the voice command acceptance unit, wherein when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is a language that is usable by being set, by the setting unit, as the language by which a voice command is to be accepted, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold, ([0013] The method according to the disclosure serves to operate a motor vehicle having an operating device which, in a first operating mode, is configured to be used in a first, preset operating language and which, in a second operating mode, is configured to be used in a second operating language. In other words, a first operating language is specified in the first operating mode, and in the second operating mode a second operating language is specified, which may preferably differ from the first operating language.)and when it is determined that the language that is used by the person is not the language that is usable by being set, by the setting unit, as the language by which a voice command is to be accepted, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. ([0051] Alternatively, if the user used the operating device 12 in the first operating language, and if, for example, his pronunciation is not yet good enough, the speech recognition and language determination device 14 may determine or ascertain that only up to 80% of his voice inputs were correctly recognized (S1). In the speech recognition and language determination device 14, a threshold value may then be stored, capable of describing that the operation steps of the method according to the disclosure are carried out at a percentage of, for example, less than 90% of the recognized voice inputs.)
Regarding Claim 4, Al Haddad and Choi disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Al Haddad further discloses: wherein the detection unit acquires information on the language that is used by the person based on utterance of the person. ([0014] In the first operating mode, a speech recognition and language determination device of the operating device detects or recognizes a voice input from the user of the motor vehicle, and determines that the user has said something. A speech recognition and language determination device in this case is considered to be a device component or a component of the operating device, which is configured to detect and recognize a voice input by the user, i.e., to carry out speech recognition, and to determine in which language the voice input was made. A voice input in this case is a verbal utterance of the user, for example, a spoken word or a spoken word sequence.)
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and reasoning.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Haddad (US 20200349936), in view of Choi US (20230367461), and further in view of Fountaine (US 20180325470).
Regarding Claim 5, Al Haddad and Choi disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Al Haddad and Choi do not appear to disclose: wherein the voice command acceptance unit the voice command acceptance unit accepts, with respect to one of a highly emergent voice command and a highly instantaneous voice command, the voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold.
Fountaine in the related art discloses: wherein the voice command acceptance unit the voice command acceptance unit accepts, with respect to one of a highly emergent voice command and a highly instantaneous voice command, the voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold. ([0084] The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may be similar to the speech recognition engine 460 but with enhanced and/or emphasized capability to recognize, interpret and/or identify an emergency speech 561 of the user 100. For example the emergency speech 561 may be: an emergency word such as “help!” (e.g., the emergency word 1110 of FIG. 11); a speech tone tending to indicate anxiety, pain, or suffering; and/or abnormally rapid, loud or incoherent speech. The emergency speech recognition engine 560 may also have a lower threshold for recognizing certain words commonly associated with danger or injury to the user 100, for example “medication”, “dizzy”, “injury”, “smoke”, explitives, and similar words. In one or more embodiments, the emergency speech recognition engine 560 may simultaneously receive the voice communication 110 of the user 100 at the same time as the speech recognition engine 460; however, upon meeting a threshold number of words associated with an emergency, danger or injury to the user 100 the automated emergency assistance engine 562 may communicate with the assistance coordinator 214 to route communications primarily to the emergency server 500 and/or initiate frequent instances of the status query 107 to the user 100.)
Al Haddah, Choi, and Fountaine are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al Haddad and Choi to combine the teaching of Fountaine, because voice controlled assistance for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions will benefit user in getting assistance they need (Fountaine, [0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Haddad (US 20200349936), in view of Choi US (20230367461), and further in view of Liao (US 20140354881).
Regarding Claim 6, Al Haddad and Choi disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Al Haddad and Choi do not appear to disclose: the voice command acceptance apparatus is a vehicle recording control device that is used in a vehicle, the voice command acceptance apparatus further comprising: a video data acquisition unit that acquires first video data that is captured by a first image capturing unit that captures an image of surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the voice command acceptance unit receives an instruction on event recording by a voice command, and the execution control unit, when the voice command acceptance unit receives the instruction on the event recording by the voice command, stores, as event data, the first video data that includes a time point at which the instruction on the event recording is received.
Liao in the related art discloses: the voice command acceptance apparatus is a vehicle recording control device that is used in a vehicle, ([0018] The microprocessor 181 transfers the above-mentioned recordings to the storage module 187 to be saved.)
the voice command acceptance apparatus further comprising: a video data acquisition unit that acquires first video data that is captured by a first image capturing unit that captures an image of surroundings of the vehicle, ([0018] When the voice recognition module 317 identifies a voice command from the user, it sends the command to the processor 313, the processor 313 controls the user interface module 315 to display the image of the corresponding driving assistance software and start the driving assistance software to execute actions according the voice command. The driving assistance software is capable of recording an image in the front of the vehicle 100 via the camera 33,)
wherein the voice command acceptance unit receives an instruction on event recording by a voice command, and the execution control unit, when the voice command acceptance unit receives the instruction on the event recording by the voice command, stores, as event data, the first video data that includes a time point at which the instruction on the event recording is received. ([0018] When the voice recognition module 317 identifies a voice command from the user, it sends the command to the processor 313, the processor 313 controls the user interface module 315 to display the image of the corresponding driving assistance software and start the driving assistance software to execute actions according the voice command. The driving assistance software is capable of recording an image in the front of the vehicle 100 via the camera 33, and record sound within the vehicle 100 via the recording components of the portable smart device 30. The processor 313 transfers the recordings of the images and the sound to the microprocessor 181. The microprocessor 181 transfers the above-mentioned recordings to the storage module 187 to be saved.)
Al Haddah, Choi, and Liao are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al Haddad and Choi to combine the teaching of Liao, because voice activation of a dashcam would provide more user convenience and better record keeping of events (Liao, [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cox (US 7487096) – discloses method/apparatus for providing flexible adaption to adjust system’s tolerance level toward accents so that their speech can still be understand by the system even when their pronunciation is not of perfect. See Abstract, col. 3, lines 38-55 and figs. 1-3 for additional details.
Doyle (US 20060265223) – discloses method/system for measuring quality of input audio signal and adjusting the rejection threshold dynamically. See Abstract and figs. 1 and 3 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights