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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. ***, filed on *** and is hereby incorporated by references.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(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.
4. 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.
5. 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 speech recognition module for converting the voice commands to text and a horn control module for activating a horn in claim 1.
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. (FP 7.30.06)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023).
Regarding claim 1, KRISTINSSON discloses a motor vehicle voice-activated horn system [e.g. FIG. 1; a vehicle including a horn], comprising:
a microphone for receiving voice commands [e.g. FIG. 1; microphone to receive voice prompt];
a speech recognition module for the voice command to invoke functions on the computing platform [e.g. [0017-0018]; speech recognition according to grammar associated with available commands];
a horn control module for activating a horn, wherein the horn is activated based on message [e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0034]; the controller based on the message to only allow activating an attention creating measure including flashing exterior lights or activating a horn of the vehicle]; and
a processor for coupling the microphone [e.g. FIG. 1; controller or processor], the speech recognition module, and the horn control module, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a voice command from the microphone [e.g. FIG. 1; microphone to receive voice prompt];
convert the voice command to message using the speech recognition module; and
activate the horn using the horn control module [e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0034]; the controller based on the message to only allow activating an attention creating measure including flashing exterior lights or activating a horn of the vehicle]
Although KRISTINSSON discloses a voice interface may support a speech recognition from audio received via the microphone according to grammar associated with available commands including activating the horn [e.g. e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0017-0018 and 0034], it is noted that KRISTINSSON differs to the present invention in that KRISTINSSON fails to disclose the detail of the speech recognition.
However, Basyal teaches the well-known concept of a vehicle [e.g. a movable robot] using speech recognition [e.g. Fig. 13; introduction; speech recognition] to the voice command to message text [e.g. FIG. 1 and 13; converting input voice signal into corresponding text] and generating a command if the text matches at least one of: a predetermined keyword and a phrase [e.g. FIG. 13; introduction, section D and section IV; check the received string with predefined commands, if match, controlling lighting and horn mechanism through voice commands].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract].
Regarding claim 5, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose the horn is mounted either on interior or exterior of the motor vehicle [e.g. Basyal: FIG. 24-26; FIG. 14-15; horn mechanical mounting].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract].
Regarding claim 10, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose the horn control module for activating a horn is programmable to broadcast a variety of types of signals, including a short honk, a long honk, or a series of honks [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; [0034]; modulating the intensity of the horn; Basyal: FIG. 1-2 and 12-13].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract].
Regarding claim 11 and 17, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 and 10 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18-19, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and Domeyer et al (US 20220161823 A1).
Regarding claim 2, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose the motor vehicle voice-activated horn system by determining if the input string matches the predetermined command [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; Basyal: FIG. 12-13], but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to explicitly disclose the details of the command.
However, Domeyer the predetermined keyword or the phrase comprises "honk the horn" [e.g. FIG. 3; [0053]; a command to honk the horn].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn command technique taught by Domeyer as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and an autonomous host vehicle to mitigate risk to one or more road users [See Domeyer; [0001]].
Regarding claim 3, KRISTINSSON, Basyal and Domeyer further disclose the processor is further configured to activate the horn for a predetermined duration of time [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 2; [0038]; Domeyer: [0033 and 0053]; time duration for performing an action].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn command technique taught by Domeyer as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and an autonomous host vehicle to mitigate risk to one or more road users [See Domeyer; [0001]].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and NAKAYAMA (US 20110304445 A1)
Regarding claim 4, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose adjusting volume of the horn [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 2; [0034]]; but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to disclose the detail of adjusting the volume of the horn.
However, NAKAYAMA teaches the well-known concept of the processor is further configured to adjust volume of the horn based on an ambient noise level [e.g. FIG. 1; controller 6; [0066]; adjust automatically sound output levels (sound volumes) of the vehicular horn device 4 and the ultrasonic wave speaker 5 based on an ambient noise surrounding the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn volume technique taught by NAKAYAMA as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and enabling the pedestrian to easily notice the approach or presence of the vehicle [See NAKAYAMA; abstract].
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and STEPHENS et al (US 20220311468 A1).
Regarding claim 6, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose a motor vehicle voice-activated horn system [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; Basyal: FIG. 12-13], but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to explicitly disclose the motor vehicle voice-activated horn system is implemented in a bicycle
However, STEPHENS teaches the well-known concept of the motor vehicle voice-activated horn system is implemented in a bicycle [e.g. FIG. 1 and 6; [0104]; determine a security action to perform by the electric bicycle 100 and/or by one or more components (e.g., a horn or alarm)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn volume for a bicycle technique taught by STEPHENS as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and performing safe action for a bicycle [See STEPHENS; [0102-0104]].
Regarding claim 14, KRISTINSSON, Basyal and STEPHENS further disclose activating the motor vehicle voice-activated horn by a driver while holding a steering wheel [e.g. STEPHENS: FIG. 1-2].
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and Elswick et al (US 20200156537 A1).
Regarding claim 7, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose the speech recognition module converts a driver's voice command to the text [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; Basyal: FIG. 12-13]; but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to explicitly disclose the detail of the conversion.
However, Elswick teaches the well-known concept of the speech recognition module converts a driver's voice command to the text using a machine learning algorithm to train the system to recognize the driver's voice command [e.g. FIG. 1-2; ASR system; [0040-0043]; training commands known and used for the system].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known speech recognition technique taught by Elswick as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and the best matching sub word is that which corresponds to the stored known reference pattern[See Elswick; [0046-0048]].
Regarding claim 8, KRISTINSSON, Basyal and Elswick further disclose the speech recognition module converts a driver's voice command to the text by converting and processing an electrical signal received from the microphone through a comparator chip [e.g. Elswick: FIG. 1-2; processors; ASR system; [0039-0042 and 0046]; comparing acoustic data to stored sub word data].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known speech recognition technique taught by Elswick as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and the best matching sub word is that which corresponds to the stored known reference pattern[See Elswick; [0046-0048]].
Regarding claim 12-13, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 7-8 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 9and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and LIU et al (CN 110765837 A).
Regarding claim 9, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose a motor vehicle voice-activated horn system [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; Basyal: FIG. 12-13], but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to explicitly disclose the detail of control of the horn.
However, LIU teaches the well-known concept of the horn is deactivated when the motor vehicle is within an area where louder sounds above a sound threshold are prohibited [e.g. FIG. 1-2; detecting violation whistling vehicle in the area that horn or whistle is prohibited if the noise is exceed the threshold]].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn technique taught by LIU as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and reduced vehicle violation [See LIU; abstract].
Regarding claim 16, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 9 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRISTINSSON et al (US 20190092283 A1) in view of Basyal (“Voice Recognition Robot with Real-Time Surveillance and Automation”, Stevens Institute of Technology, 12/7/2023) and Campbell et al (US 20020067245 A1).
Regarding claim 15, KRISTINSSON and Basyal further disclose a motor vehicle voice-activated horn system [e.g. KRISTINSSON: FIG. 1-2; Basyal: FIG. 12-13], but KRISTINSSON and Basyal fail to explicitly disclose details of activating the motor vehicle voice-activated horn.
However, Campbell teaches the well-known concept of activating the motor vehicle voice-activated horn when a driver cannot access a horn button [e.g. FIG. 1-2; [0006-0011]; hands free control operation of several different devices, including door locks, trunk, and horn on a vehicle].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation of a vehicle alert system disclosed by KRISTINSSON to exploit the well-known speech recognition for activating a horn technique taught by Basyal and the well-known controlling horn technique taught by Campbell as above, in order to provide enabling robots to perform specific tasks with precision [See Basyal; abstract] and a voice activated input capability to allow the transmitter to be operated hands-free [See Campbell; [0006]].
Regarding claim 20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 15 and 17 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lavoie et al (US 20190243380 A1).
Joh (US 20210166683 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights