DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 30 December 2024 in reference to application 19/004,821. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yae (US PAP 2025/0201243).
Consider claim 1, Yae teaches A system comprising (abstract):
an electronic computing device comprising (i) a user interface for receiving a physical user input (0034, touch input) and (ii) an electronic digital assistant configured to receive a set of voice commands (0031-33 user speech control input), the set of voice commands comprising a first subset of voice commands and a second subset of voice commands (0051-62, voice commands that a seat position has authority to execute and voice commands that a seat position lacks authority to execute);
at least one occupancy sensor configured to output sensor data indicating an occupancy status of one or more seating zones in a vehicle (0041, pressure sensor to determine if seat is occupied);
at least one processor; and
non-transitory, computer-readable data storage comprising program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (0064-65, processor and memory), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
receiving, by the electronic computing device, a voice command (0110-11 receiving voice command);
determining whether the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands or the second subset of voice commands (0115-16 determining if there is authority to perform command or not);
determining, based on the sensor data, that a particular seating zone of the one or more seating zones in the vehicle is occupied (0118-19, determining if seat with authority is occupied or not); and
in response to both receiving the voice command and determining that the particular seating zone is occupied, performing a voice command verification process comprising:
(i) when the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to refrain from executing the voice command until the user interface of the electronic computing device receives the physical user input (0122-25 receiving approval from authority seat position and executing only if authority granted, 0034, command inputs (such as granting authority) may be touch input); and
(ii) when the received voice command is included in the second subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to substantially immediately execute the voice command (0120-22, if history indicates authority has been granted, command is executed).
Consider claim 2, Yae teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic computing device comprises at least one of a portable radio or a mobile communication device integrated into the vehicle (figure 2, 0030, 0044-45, control device may be built into vehicle and include communication capabilities).
Consider claim 4, Yae teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of voice commands comprises voice commands for interfacing with a public safety computing system, and wherein the first subset of voice commands comprises at least one of (i) an incident status query, (ii) an officer status query, (iii) a radio access command, or (iv) a dispatcher access command (figure 3, 0061, radio communication set of commands).
Consider claim 6, Yae teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the particular seating zone comprises a rear seating zone located in a rear seating area of the vehicle (0080-082, control authority for different commands granted to different seats, which can include back seats, see figure 3.).
Consider claim 10, Yae teaches A method comprising (abstract):
providing (i) a user interface for receiving a physical user input (0034, touch input) and (ii) an electronic digital assistant configured to receive a set of voice commands (0031-33 user speech control input), the set of voice commands comprising a first subset of voice commands and a second subset of voice commands (0051-62, voice commands that a seat position has authority to execute and voice commands that a seat position lacks authority to execute);
receiving, by the electronic computing device, a voice command (0110-11 receiving voice command);
determining whether the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands or the second subset of voice commands (0115-16 determining if there is authority to perform command or not);
receiving, from at least one occupancy sensor, sensor data indicating an occupancy status of one or more seating zones in a vehicle (0041, pressure sensor to determine if seat is occupied);
determining, based on the sensor data, that a particular seating zone of the one or more seating zones in the vehicle is occupied (0118-19, determining if seat with authority is occupied or not); and
in response to both receiving the voice command and determining that the particular seating zone is occupied, performing a voice command verification process comprising:
(i) when the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to refrain from executing the voice command until the user interface of the electronic computing device receives the physical user input (0122-25 receiving approval from authority seat position and executing only if authority granted, 0034, command inputs (such as granting authority) may be touch input); and
(ii) when the received voice command is included in the second subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to substantially immediately execute the voice command (0120-22, if history indicates authority has been granted, command is executed).
Claim 11 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 16, Yae teaches An electronic computing device (abstract) comprising:
a user interface for receiving a physical user input (0034, touch input)
an electronic digital assistant configured to receive a set of voice commands (0031-33 user speech control input), the set of voice commands comprising a first subset of voice commands and a second subset of voice commands (0051-62, voice commands that a seat position has authority to execute and voice commands that a seat position lacks authority to execute);
at least one processor; and
non-transitory, computer-readable data storage comprising program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (0064-65, processor and memory), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
receiving, by the electronic computing device, a voice command (0110-11 receiving voice command);
determining whether the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands or the second subset of voice commands (0115-16 determining if there is authority to perform command or not);
receiving, from at least one occupancy sensor, sensor data indicating an occupancy status of one or more seating zones in a vehicle (0041, pressure sensor to determine if seat is occupied);
determining, based on the sensor data, that a particular seating zone of the one or more seating zones in the vehicle is occupied (0118-19, determining if seat with authority is occupied or not); and
in response to both receiving the voice command and determining that the particular seating zone is occupied, performing a voice command verification process comprising:
(i) when the received voice command is included in the first subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to refrain from executing the voice command until the user interface of the electronic computing device receives the physical user input (0122-25 receiving approval from authority seat position and executing only if authority granted, 0034, command inputs (such as granting authority) may be touch input); and
(ii) when the received voice command is included in the second subset of voice commands, causing the electronic digital assistant to substantially immediately execute the voice command (0120-22, if history indicates authority has been granted, command is executed).
Claim 17 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yae in view of Pinder et al. (US PAP 2011/0287719).
Consider claim 5, Yae teaches The system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the user interface comprises a foot switch arranged in a footwell of the vehicle, and wherein the physical user input comprises an actuation of the foot switch.
In the same field of accepted voice input Pinder teaches herein the user interface comprises a foot switch arranged in a footwell of the vehicle, and wherein the physical user input comprises an actuation of the foot switch (0024, Push to talk capabilities may be implemented via a foot switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to accept speech inputs as determined by a foot switch as taught by Pinder in the system of Yae in order to accept inputs in a hands free manner than cannot be activated by another occupant.
Claim 12 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-9, 14, 15, 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.
Consider claim 3, Yae teaches The system of claim 2, but does not specifically teach “wherein the electronic computing device comprises both the portable radio and the mobile communication device integrated into the vehicle, wherein the portable radio comprises the user interface for receiving the physical user input, and wherein the mobile communication device integrated into the vehicle comprises the electronic digital assistant.” Rather Yae accepts approval from the authority seat through the system integrated into the vehicle via either speech or touch control inputs, and not inputs into a portable radio. Therefore claim 3 contains allowable subject matter
Consider claim 7, Yae teaches The system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach “the set of operations further comprising: receiving vehicle data indicating a type of the vehicle; and defining the one or more seating zones based on the type of the vehicle.” Rather Yae has the seating pre-defined ahead of time and is not set based on the type of vehicle that has been received. Therefore claim 7 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 8 and 9 depend on and further limit claim 7 and therefore contain allowable subject matter as well.
Claim 14 contains similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Claim 15 depends on and further limit claim 14 and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Consider claim 20, Yae teaches The electronic computing device of claim 16, but does not specifically teach the set of operations further comprising: receiving vehicle data indicating a type of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle data indicates that the type of the vehicle is that of a vehicle comprising a physical barrier separating a rear seating area of the vehicle from a front seating area of the vehicle; and defining the one or more seating zones based on the type of the vehicle, wherein defining the one or more seating zones based on the type of the vehicle comprises defining the one or more seating zones to include at least a portion of the rear seating area based on the vehicle comprising the physical barrier.” Rather Yae has the seating pre-defined ahead of time and is not set based on the type of vehicle that has been received. Therefore claim 7 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barth et al. (US PAP 2019/0080693) teaches a method of preventing unauthorized speech commands in emergency vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights