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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 04/30/2025 and claimed priority on CN202411206213.X, which was filed on 08/29/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 2, “a first request information” in lines 1-2 should be “the first request information”
For claim 7, “a first application programming interface” in lines 1-2 should be “the first application programming interface”. Also, the term “a second LLM” in line 9 should be “a second large language model (LLM)” since this is the first time the LLM is being introduced in this chain of claims.
Claim 8 states “converting, at the target agent, fourth feedback information generated during process of performing an operation”. There should be an “a” before process (e.g. converting, at the target agent, fourth feedback information generated during a process of performing an operation).
Claim 13 states “the processor being used for reading the executable instructions from the memory and performing the instructions to implement a method”. Applicant should reword the claim to read “the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions from the memory and perform the instructions to implement a method”.
For claim 14, “a first request information” in line 2 should be “the first request information”
For claim 19, “a first application programming interface” in line 2 should be “the first application programming interface”. Also, the term “a second LLM” in line 9 should be “a second large language model (LLM)” since this is the first time the LLM is being introduced in this chain of claims.
Claim 20 states “converting, at the target agent, fourth feedback information generated during process of performing an operation”. There should be an “a” before process (e.g. converting, at the target agent, fourth feedback information generated during a process of performing an operation).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for the term “the listening state” in line 6 and “the second feedback information” in line 7. It is unclear what listening state or second feedback information Applicant is referring to. Furthermore, it is unclear what Applicant means when they recite “in response to that the first target agent enters into the listening state after feeding back the second feedback information to be confirmed in the process of performing the operation corresponding to the first request information”. Applicant should reword the claim so that it is clear what Applicant is trying to say. Furthermore, it is unclear if “a listening state” in lines 9-10 and “a second feedback information” in line 10 are referring to the listening state and second feedback information recited earlier in the claim, or if they are different. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for the term “the text request” in line 4 and “the voice request” in line 7. It is unclear what text request and voice request Applicant is referring to. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 16 lacks antecedent basis for the term “the listening state” in line 6 and “the second feedback information” in line 7. It is unclear what listening state or second feedback information Applicant is referring to. Furthermore, it is unclear what Applicant means when they recite “in response to that the first target agent enters into the listening state after feeding back the second feedback information to be confirmed in the process of performing the operation corresponding to the first request information”. Applicant should reword the claim so that it is clear what Applicant is trying to say. Furthermore, it is unclear if “a listening state” in lines 9-10 and “a second feedback information” in line 10 are referring to the listening state and second feedback information recited earlier in the claim, or if they are different. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 19 lacks antecedent basis for the term “the text request” in line 4 and “the voice request” in line 7. It is unclear what text request and voice request Applicant is referring to.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 recites “A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for intelligent cockpit interaction”. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program is software per se, and is not a process, machine, manufacture, and/or composition of matter. To overcome the rejection, applicant is suggested to amend claim 12 as “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for intelligent cockpit interaction…”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagatsuma et al (US 20200320997 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wagatsuma)
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, Wagatsuma teaches a method for intelligent cockpit interaction (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0030),
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for intelligent cockpit interaction (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0014, 0030, and 0047),
an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a processor (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0030, and 0047);
a memory for storing processor-executable instructions (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0047, the program is interpreted as instructions);
wherein the processor being used for reading the executable instructions from the memory and performing the instructions to implement a method for intelligent cockpit interaction (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0030, and 0047),
the intelligent cockpit comprising a first agent and at least one second agent (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0046 and Figure 2, the manager is interpreted as the first agent, and the agent functional units are interpreted as second agents), the method comprising:
determining, at the first agent, at least one target agent for processing a first interaction request from among the at least one second agent after the first interaction request is acquired (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0050-0052 and Figure 2, the manager/first agent determines which target agent to activate after acquiring a voice stream/interaction request);
sending, at the first agent, a first request information corresponding to the first interaction request to the at least one target agent (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0052, and 0091, the request is sent to the target agent); and
performing, at the target agent, an operation corresponding to the first request information (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0054, 0060, 0091, and Figure 5, the target agent performs the function/operation requested).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Wagatsuma teaches converting, at the target agent, fourth feedback information generated during process of performing an operation corresponding to the first request information into first prompting information (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0057-0058, and 0074, the instruction from the agent function unit is interpreted as first prompting information); and
sending, at the target agent, the first prompting information to a first prompting device of the intelligent cockpit, so as to output the first prompting information via the first prompting device (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0057-0058, and 0074, the instruction/first prompting information is output to the voice controller and display controller, which are interpreted as first prompting devices).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Wagatsuma teaches after acquiring a third interaction request complying with a second condition, generating, at the first agent, second prompting information corresponding to the second condition (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0090 and Figure 2, the display controller and voice controller, which are part of the first agent/manager, generate second prompting information corresponding to the second condition of the request being impossible); and sending, at the first agent, the second prompting information to a second prompting device of the intelligent cockpit, so that the second prompting information is prompted via the second prompting device (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0090 and Figure 2, the display controller outputs text to the display and the voice controller outputs a voice to the speaker; the display and speaker are interpreted as second prompting devices),
wherein the second condition comprises: a function to be realized corresponding to the third interaction request being a function which is not supported by a vehicle provided with the intelligent cockpit (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0090, 0103, and Figure 12, the condition being impossible to cope with is interpreted as a function which is not supported by a vehicle provided with the intelligent cockpit), and/or the third interaction request being an interaction request which fails to be identified by the first agent.
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 2-4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma in view of Hisanaga et al (US 20210280187 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hisanaga)
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 14-16, Wagatsuma fails to disclose in response to that the at least one target agent comprises two or more target agents, splitting, at the first agent, the first interaction request into sub-requests respectively corresponding to the target agents; and
sending, at the first agent, sub-request information respectively corresponding to the sub-requests to the respective target agents,
wherein the sending, at the first agent, sub- request information respectively corresponding to the sub-requests to the respective target agent, comprises: sending, at the first agent, sub-request information respectively corresponding to the sub-requests to the respective target agents within a target duration range; or sending, at the first agent, first sub-request information corresponding to a first sub-request among the sub-requests to a first target agent; and in response to that the first target agent satisfies a first condition, sending, at the first agent, second sub-request information corresponding to a second sub-request among the sub-requests to a second target agent,
wherein in response to that the first target agent sends a first feedback information about successful operation to the first agent after completing the operation corresponding to the first request information, the first condition comprises: the first agent receives the first feedback information; and/or in response to that the first target agent enters into the listening state after feeding back the second feedback information to be confirmed in the process of performing the operation corresponding to the first request information, the first condition comprises: the first target agent is in a state other than a working state and a listening state for waiting for confirmation of a second feedback information.
However, Hisanaga teaches in response to that the at least one target agent comprises two or more target agents, splitting, at the first agent, the first interaction request into sub-requests respectively corresponding to the target agents (See at least Hisanaga Paragraphs 0037, 0043, 0086, and Figure 5, the target agents include agents 29 and 30, and the request is split into sub-requests 16g and 16h); and
sending, at the first agent, sub-request information respectively corresponding to the sub-requests to the respective target agents (See at least Hisanaga Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0086, and Figure 5, the mashup/first agent sends a command speech with trigger to the target agents),
wherein the sending, at the first agent, sub- request information respectively corresponding to the sub-requests to the respective target agent, comprises: sending, at the first agent, first sub-request information corresponding to a first sub-request among the sub-requests to a first target agent; and in response to that the first target agent satisfies a first condition, sending, at the first agent, second sub-request information corresponding to a second sub-request among the sub-requests to a second target agent (See at least Hisanaga Paragraphs 0091-0113 and Figure 6, the first sub-request information is sent to the first target agent 31 by the first/mashup agent 23, and in response to the first target agent 31 completing its function, which is interpreted as satisfying a first condition, the second sub-request information is sent to the second target agent 32),
wherein in response to that the first target agent sends a first feedback information about successful operation to the first agent after completing the operation corresponding to the first request information, the first condition comprises: the first agent receives the first feedback information (See at least Hisanaga Paragraphs 0091-0104 and Figure 6, the session data from the first target agent 31 is interpreted as first feedback information, which is received by the first/mashup agent 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wagatsuma with Hisanaga to split, at the first agent, the first interaction request into sub-requests respectively corresponding to the target agents, and in response to the first agent receiving the first feedback information, sending, at the first agent, second sub-request information corresponding to a second sub-request among the sub-requests to a second target agent. This modification, as taught by Hisanaga, would allow the second target agent to perform the second sub-request while utilizing the session data from the first target agent after the first target agent finishes the first sub-request, thus, allowing the two target agents to sequentially perform multiple services so that the user can obtain the results of the multiple services (See at least Hisanaga Paragraphs 0091-0113).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma in view of Sukumar (US 20210358496 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sukumar)
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Wagatsuma teaches the first interaction request comprises: a voice request and/or a request triggered by a target event of the intelligent cockpit (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraph 0091, the first interaction request is a voice request);
in response to that the first interaction request comprises a voice request, the first request information corresponding to the first interaction request comprises: a text request converted by the first agent from the voice request via a first large language model (LLM), and/or the voice request (See at least Wagatsuma Paragraphs 0066, 0091, and Figure 6, the first request information is a voice request which the target agent processes).
Wagatsuma fails to disclose in response to that the first interaction request comprises a request triggered by the target event of the intelligent cockpit, first request information corresponding to the first interaction request comprises: a text request determined by the first agent according to the request triggered by the target event of the intelligent cockpit and/or the voice request.
However, Sukumar teaches in response to that the first interaction request comprises a request triggered by the target event of the intelligent cockpit, first request information corresponding to the first interaction request comprises: a text request determined by the first agent according to the request triggered by the target event of the intelligent cockpit (See at least Sukumar Paragraphs 0074-0076, and 0080, the on-board and/or off-board data is used as a trigger for a requested action, and the first request information is a text request determined by the text analyzer/first agent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wagatsuma with Sukumar to have the request be a text request triggered by a target event of the intelligent cockpit. This modification, as taught by Sukumar, would allow the intelligent cockpit to utilize real-time on-board and off-board data to determine a requested action (See at least Sukumar Paragraph 0076), thus, increasing the autonomous capabilities of the intelligent cockpit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma in view of Gupta et al (US 20250263033 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Gupta)
Regarding Claim 9, Wagatsuma fails to disclose the intelligent cockpit supports interaction with a remote agent, the method further comprises:
after acquiring a second interaction request supported by the remote agent, sending, at the first agent, second request information corresponding to the second interaction request to the remote agent, so as to perform an operation corresponding to the second request information by the remote agent.
However, Gupta teaches the intelligent cockpit supports interaction with a remote agent (See at least Gupta Paragraph 0090, the vehicle computing system communicates with a remote agent), the method further comprises:
after acquiring a second interaction request supported by the remote agent, sending second request information corresponding to the second interaction request to the remote agent, so as to perform an operation corresponding to the second request information by the remote agent (See at least Gupta Paragraphs 0041-0042, and 0090, the user prompt is interpreted as the second request information, which is communicated to the remote agent and the remote agent outputs a response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wagatsuma with Gupta to have the first agent send second request information corresponding to the second interaction request to the remote agent. This modification, as taught by Gupta, would allow an agent remote from the vehicle to respond to the user prompt/request by utilizing a communication network (See at least Gupta Paragraphs 0041-0042, and 0090), thus, increasing the capabilities of the intelligent cockpit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fernandez et al (US 20250249742 A1) teaches selecting a second language model based on the input to a first language model
Takeshita (US 20210233516 A1) teaches determining which agent the user’s voice is directed to
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights