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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/27/2017 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites the limitation "detecting an attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle". However, the independent Claim 1 upon which the claim 6 depends also recites a limitation (i.e. detecting an attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle or a component of the autonomous vehicle) that has the same scope as the one in the Claim 6, thus the Claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 3, 6-8 and 15-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanc-Paques et al. (US PG PUB 20190318159), hereinafter "Blanc", in views of Knight et al. (US PAT 11501754), hereinafter "Knight", further in views of Witko (US PG PUB 20250289365 ), hereinafter "Witko".
Regarding Claims 1, 19 and 20, Blanc discloses:
(Claim 1) A method implemented by one or more processors (i.e. method/system implemented by computer-executable component such as a processor) (¶ 0090), the method comprising:
(Clam 19) A system (an autonomous vehicle rideshare platform system) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0014 and ¶ 0090) comprising: at least one processor (i.e. computer-executable component which may be a processor) (¶ 0090); and memory storing instructions (i.e. computer executable instructions stored on memory) (¶ 0090) that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to be operable to:
(Claim 20) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (i.e. computer executable instructions stored on memory and executable by computer-executable components) (¶ 0090), cause the at least one processor to perform operations to:
monitoring/monitor sensor data of an autonomous vehicle or an environment of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. method/system may monitor sensor data, e.g. data from a set of optical sensors of an autonomous vehicle, in order to scan the field around the autonomous vehicle) (Abstract, Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 - 0028);
identifying/identify, based on an instance of the sensor data, a local communication participant located proximate to the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the method/system may identify, based on the sensor data obtained by scanning the field around the autonomous vehicle [i.e. an instance of the sensor data], a human [i.e. a local communication participant] standing proximal [i.e. located proximate] the autonomous vehicle; wherein the human is located proximal to the autonomous vehicle and may be communicated orally by the autonomous vehicle [i.e. human/user is local communication participant]) (Abstract and ¶ 0029);
detecting/detect an attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle or a component of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the method/system may determine/detect that a rider/human [i.e. the local communication participant] attempts to enter [i.e. an attempt to access] the autonomous vehicle; For example, the autonomous vehicle can scan its near field for a human approaching the autonomous vehicle indicating the intent [i.e. attempt] to enter/access the autonomous vehicle [i.e. attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle]) (¶ 0026 and ¶ 0029);
initiating, in response to the detecting the attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle, a communication with the local communication participant (i.e. in response to detection of a human approaching the autonomous vehicle with the intent to enter the autonomous vehicle [i.e. the attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle], the autonomous vehicle can initiate a conversation with the rider/human by outputting a conversational prompt [i.e. a communication] to the human [i.e. the local communication participant]) (S130 & S132 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0029 - 0030)
determining content to be audibly rendered as part of the communication with the local communication participant (i.e. the method/system may determine an audio prompt, e.g. “Hi. I'm Enzo. What's your name?” [i.e. content to be audibly rendered] as part of the conversation [i.e. communication] with the human [i.e. the local communication participant]) (S132 – Fig. 1 and ¶ 0032);
causing the content to be audibly rendered, for presentation to the local communication participant, via one or more speaker components of a computing device (i.e. the method/system may output the audio prompt, e.g. “Hi. I'm Enzo. What's your name?” [i.e. the content to be audibly rendered] to the human [i.e. the local communication participant] through an outwardly-facing speaker on the autonomous vehicle [i.e. one or more speaker components of a computing device]) (¶ 032);
receiving, in response to the content being audibly rendered, audio data that captures a response that is responsive to the content (i.e. the method/system may receive, in response to the audio prompt [i.e. in response to the content being audibly rendered], a voice print [i.e. audio data] characterizing user recitations of their own names [i.e. a response] which is responsive to the audio prompt, “Hi. I'm Enzo. What's your name?” [i.e. the content]) (S134 – Fig. 3, ¶ 0030 - 0032);
determining, based on processing at least one of the audio data or the response, whether the local communication participant is authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. based on comparison [i.e. processing] between the local audio recording copy of the voice print [i.e. the audio data] and the voice print from the user profile, the method/system may determine whether the human [i.e. the local communication participant] currently interacting with the autonomous vehicle is the user assigned to the autonomous vehicle [i.e. authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle]) (S140 - Fig. 3 and ¶ 0030 - 0032); and
granting, in response to determining that the local communication participant is authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle, the local communication participant access to the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the autonomous vehicle can unlock a door [i.e. granting access] of the autonomous vehicle for the user [i.e. granting the local communication participant access to the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle] upon identifying the human as the user assigned to the autonomous vehicle [i.e. in response to determining that the local communication participant is authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle]) (S142 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0037).
However, Blanc does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining/obtain, based on the communication with the local communication participant, generative model input; generating/generate, using a generative model and based on the generative model input, generative model output.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Knight teaches:
obtaining/obtain, based on the communication with the local communication participant, generative model input (i.e. the method/system may obtain a plurality of current utterance variables [i.e. generative model input] by tokenizing the user’s/rider’s [i.e., the local communication participant] speech input [i.e. based on the communication with the local communication participant] as input [i.e. generative model input] to automatic agent [i.e. generative model]) (620 – Fig. 6, Column 4 Line # 11 – 13 and Column 13 Line # 30 - 41);
generating/generate, using a generative model and based on the generative model input, generative model output (i.e. the method/system may generate, using the automatic agent [i.e. a generative model] and based on parameters obtained using the plurality of current utterance variables [i.e. the generative model input], a response [i.e. generative model output]) (630 & 640 – Fig. 6 and Column 13 Line # 35 - 45).
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 method/system of Blanc to include the features for obtaining/obtain, based on the communication with the local communication participant, generative model input; generating/generate, using a generative model and based on the generative model input, generative model output as taught by Knight so that autonomous vehicle may be implemented with functionalities for determining and confirming the user’s destination through natural conversation with the user (Column 4 Line # 11 – 20).
However, the combination of Blanc and Knight does not explicitly disclose:
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Witko teaches:
determining/determine, based on the generative output, content to be audibly rendered as part of the communication with the local communication participant (i.e. the method/system may determine, based on a text message [i.e. the generative output] generated by a large language model, an audio output [i.e. content] to be transmitted as audible signal [i.e. content to be audibly rendered] as part of the interaction [i.e. communication] with a human [i.e. the local communication participant]) (Abstract, 504 & 506 – Fig. 5, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0049 and ¶ 0115 - 0116).
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 method/system of Blanc and Knight to include the features for determining/determine, based on the generative output, content to be audibly rendered as part of the communication with the local communication participant as taught by Witko so that autonomous vehicle may generate audible signals in communicating with the users) (Abstract, 504 & 506 – Fig. 5, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0049 and ¶ 0115 - 0116).
Regarding Claims 3 and 21, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Blanc teaches:
refraining/refrain, in response to determining that the local communication participant is not authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle, from granting the local communication participant access to the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. in response to the audible response exhibiting characteristics distinct from characteristics represented in the voiceprint [i.e. in response to determining that the local communication participant is not authorized to access the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle]: identifying the human as other than the user in Block S150; and serving a second prompt to the human indicating that the autonomous vehicle is reserved for other than the human [i.e. from granting the local communication participant access to the autonomous vehicle or the component of the autonomous vehicle]) (S150 – Fig. 3 and ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 6, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Blanc teaches:
detecting an attempt by the local communication participant to access the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the method/system may determine/detect that a rider/human [i.e. the local communication participant] attempts to enter [i.e. an attempt to access] the autonomous vehicle, for example by engaging oral conversation) (¶ 0011).
Regarding Claim 7, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Blanc teaches:
detecting an attempt by the local communication participant to access the component of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the component of the autonomous vehicle is one of: under the hood of the autonomous vehicle, a gas tank of the autonomous vehicle, a trailer hitch of the autonomous vehicle, a glove compartment of the autonomous vehicle, a lockbox of the autonomous vehicle, a cabin of the autonomous vehicle, or a storage compartment of the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the method/system may determine/detect that a rider/human [i.e. the local communication participant] attempts to enter the autonomous vehicle [i.e. a cabin of the autonomous vehicle]) (¶ 0011).
Regarding Claim 8, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose:
obtaining, based on the communication with the local communication participant, additional generative model input (Knight - i.e. the method/system may obtain a plurality of current utterance variables [i.e. generative model input] by tokenizing the user’s/rider’s [i.e., the local communication participant] speech input [i.e. based on the communication with the local communication participant] as input [i.e. additional generative model input] to automatic agent [i.e. generative model]) (Knight - 620 – Fig. 6, Column 4 Line # 11 – 13 and Column 13 Line # 30 - 41);
generating, using the generative model and based on the additional generative model input, additional generative model output (Knight - i.e. the method/system may generate, using the automatic agent [i.e. a generative model] and based on parameters obtained using the plurality of current utterance variables [i.e. the additional generative model input], a response [i.e. additional generative model output]) (Knight - 630 & 640 – Fig. 6 and 35 - 45);
determining, based on the additional generative model output, additional content to be rendered as part of the communication with the local communication participant (Witko - i.e. the method/system may determine, based on a text message [i.e. the additional generative model output] generated by a large language model, an audio output [i.e. content] to be transmitted as audible signal [i.e. content to be audibly rendered] as part of the interaction [i.e. communication] with a human [i.e. the local communication participant]) (Witko - Abstract, 504 & 506 – Fig. 5, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0049 and ¶ 0115 - 0116); and
causing the additional content to be rendered, for presentation to the local communication participant, via the computing device (Witko - i.e. the method/system may determine, based on a text message [i.e. the additional generative model output] generated by a large language model, an audio output [i.e. content] to be transmitted as audible signal [i.e. content to be audibly rendered] as part of the interaction [i.e. communication] with a human [i.e. the local communication participant]) (Witko - Abstract, 504 & 506 – Fig. 5, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0049 and ¶ 0115 - 0116).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Blanc teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are local to the autonomous vehicle; or wherein the one or more processors are located remotely from the autonomous vehicle and are located remotely from the additional computing device associated with the local communication participant (i.e. processors may be local to the autonomous vehicle or/and located remotely on server) (¶ 0018 and ¶ 0090).
Regarding Claim 16, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Knight teaches:
wherein the computing device is associated with the autonomous vehicle (i.e. computing devices 104 and 106 may each be associated with one or more vehicles (e.g., car, truck, boat, train, autonomous vehicle, electric scooter, electric bike, etc.)) (Fig. 1 and Column 4 Line # 50 – 53).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose, in particular Knight teaches:
wherein the computing device is associated with the local communication participant (i.e. computing devices 104 and 106 may be implemented on or as various devices such as a mobile phone, tablet, server, desktop computer, laptop computer associated with passenger [i.e. the local communication participant]) (Fig. 1 and Column 4 Line # 48 – 50).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanc in views of Knight further in views of Witko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Almeida et al. (US PG PUB 20210213970), hereinafter "Almeida".
Regarding Claim 5, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above.
However, the combination of Blanc, Knight and Witko does not explicitly disclose:
causing the content to be visually rendered, for presentation to the local communication participant, via a display of the computing device.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Almeida teaches:
causing the content to be visually rendered, for presentation to the local communication participant, via a display of the computing device (i.e. the method/system may cause the response/reply [i.e. the content] to the verbal information provided by rider of the autonomous vehicle to be presented/rendered to the rider [i.e. the local communication participant] as a text-based message via contextual display assembly 202 [i.e. a display computing device]) (260 & 266 – Fig. 5 and ¶ 0075 - 0076).
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 method/system of Blanc, Knight and Witko to include the features for causing the content to be rendered, for presentation to the local communication participant, via a computing device as taught by Knight so that autonomous vehicle may communicate with the user via text-based communications (260 & 266 – Fig. 5 and ¶ 0075 - 0076).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanc in views of Knight further in views of Witko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (US PG PUB 20170316533), hereinafter "Goldman".
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above.
However, the combination of Blanc, Knight and Witko does not explicitly disclose:
determining/determine a result of communication; and determining/determine, based on the result of the communication, whether to initiate an additional communication with a remote communication participant that is located remotely from the autonomous vehicle; and initiating/initiate, responsive to determining to initiate the additional communication with the remote communication participant, the conversation with the remote communication participant.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Goldman teaches:
determining a result of communication (i.e. the method/system may determine a voice command or a gesture command indicating activation of the passenger distress feature [i.e. a result of communication]) (¶ 0057); and
determining, based on the result of the communication, whether to initiate an additional communication with a remote communication participant that is located remotely from the autonomous vehicle (i.e. based on the activation of the passenger distress feature [i.e. the result of communication], the method/system may determine whether to initiate a particular form of communication, e.g. sending a message [i.e. an additional communication], with a service provider [i.e. a remote communication participant that is located remotely], such as the command and control center 102 controlling the autonomous vehicle) (¶ 0017 and ¶ 0057); and
initiating, responsive to determining to initiate the additional communication with the remote communication participant, the conversation with the remote communication participant (i.e. in response to determining to initiate the communication, the method/system may send a message to an emergency contact associated with the passenger; controlling the vehicle to drive to a police station; sending a message to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other municipal organization; sending a message to a service provider, such as the command and control center [i.e. the conversation with the remote communication participant]) (¶ 0057).
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 method/system of Blanc, Knight and Witko to include the features for determining a result of communication; and determining, based on the result of the communication, whether to initiate an additional communication with a remote communication participant that is located remotely from the autonomous vehicle; and initiating, responsive to determining to initiate the additional communication with the remote communication participant, the conversation with the remote communication participant as taught by Goldman so that the autonomous vehicle may be implemented with passenger distress features (¶ 0057).
Regarding Claims 10 and 23, Blanc, Knight, Witko and Goldman disclose, in particular Goldman teaches:
identifying, based on the result of the communication, the remote communication participant, wherein the remote communication participant is one of: a dispatcher associated with the autonomous vehicle or a teleassist operator associated with the autonomous vehicle (i.e. the method/system may send a message [i.e. this requires to identify the recipient first] to an emergency contact associated with the passenger; sending a message to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other municipal organization; sending a message to a service provider, such as the command and control center [i.e. a dispatcher associated with the autonomous vehicle or a teleassist operator associated with the autonomous vehicle]) (¶ 0057).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Blanc, Knight, Witko and Goldman disclose:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is an autonomous tractor-trailer (Knight - i.e. one or more autonomous vehicles may be car, truck [i.e. an autonomous tractor-trailer], boat, train, autonomous vehicle, electric scooter, electric bike, etc.) (Knight - Column 4 Line # 50 – 53), and
wherein remote communication participant is one of: the dispatcher associated with the autonomous vehicle, the teleassist operator associated with the autonomous vehicle, a shipper associated with a payload of a trailer of the autonomous tractor-trailer, or a carrier associated with a trailer of the autonomous tractor-trailer (i.e. Goldman - the method/system may send a message to an emergency contact associated with the passenger; sending a message to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other municipal organization; sending a message to a service provider, such as the command and control center [i.e. a dispatcher associated with the autonomous vehicle or a teleassist operator associated with the autonomous vehicle]) (Goldman - ¶ 0057).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 9.
.
Regarding Claim 12, Blanc, Knight, Witko and Goldman disclose, in particular Goldman teaches:
wherein the additional communication with the remote communication participant is one of: a voice-based communication, or a text-based communication (i.e. the method/system may send a message [i.e. a text-based communication] to an emergency contact associated with the passenger; sending a message to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or other municipal organization; sending a message to a service provider, such as the command and control center) (¶ 0057).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 9.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanc in views of Knight further in views of Witko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazumder et al. (US PG PUB 20250077635), hereinafter "Mazumder".
Regarding Claim 13, Blanc, Knight and Witko disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above.
However, the combination of Blanc, Knight and Witko does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the generative model input includes at least a prompt for authenticating the local communication participant, and wherein the content includes a request to authenticate the local communication participant.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Mazumder teaches:
wherein the generative model input includes at least a prompt for authenticating the local communication participant (i.e. the voice based authentication platform 102 may input the prompt [i.e. the generative model input], generated at step 201, into a generative AI model (e.g., such as a large language model, or the like). In some instances, the voice based authentication platform 102 may use the generative AI model to output authentication questions [i.e. includes at least a prompt for authenticating] for the individual [i.e. the local communication participant]) (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0031), and
wherein the content includes a request to authenticate the local communication participant (i.e. the output [i.e. the content] is authentication questions [i.e. a request to authenticate] for the individual [i.e. the local communication participant]) (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0031).
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 method/system of Blanc, Knight and Witko to include the features for wherein the generative model input includes at least a prompt for authenticating the local communication participant, and wherein the content includes a request to authenticate the local communication participant as taught by Mazumder so that a generative model may be used to generate authentication questions/requests (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 14, Blanc, Knight, Witko and Mazumder disclose, in particular Mazumder teaches:
wherein the request to authenticate the local communication participant requests that the local communication participant complete one or more of: short message service token authentication, email token authentication, hardware token authentication, software token authentication, biometric authentication, password authentication, or personal identification number authentication (i.e. authentication question [i.e. a request to authenticate] request the individual [i.e. the local communication participant] to provide numerical code format of the individual’s birthday [i.e. password authentication, or personal identification number authentication]) (¶ 0020 and ¶ 0031).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/Soe Hlaing/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights