Ford Global Technologies, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 20212020001297 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/408,171 01/17/2017 Ashish Nadkar 83755797 6162 28395 7590 05/26/2021 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER JACKSON, JAKIEDA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHISH NADKAR and ALAN DANIEL GONZALEZ Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter is directed to an in-vehicle infotainment system that allows a driver to interact with different voice assistant services. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10. Claims 1–22 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Brief Claims Appendix. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: tracking, by a computing system integrated in a vehicle, availability of a plurality of voice assistant services within the vehicle, each of the voice assistant services configured to utilize a different respective recognizer for voice input and command interpretation, the tracking including receiving messages indicating wake words corresponding to each of the plurality of voice assistant services; receiving audio from a microphone integrated in the vehicle; determining, using the messages, a plurality of wake words corresponding to the plurality of voice assistant services, the plurality of wake words comprising a first wake word for a first voice assistant service provided by a first device and a second wake word for a second voice assistant service provided by a second device; detecting the first wake word in the audio corresponding to the first voice assistant service of the plurality of voice assistant services; and in response to detecting the first wake word, establishing an audio link between the microphone and the first voice assistant service for voice input by a user, wherein at least one voice assistant service of the plurality of voice assistant services comprises a voice assistant service provided by a computing device not integrated in the vehicle. Appeal Br. A-1. Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Kim US 2013/0238326 A1 Sept. 12, 2013 Yang US 2014/0208295 A1 July 24, 2014 Binder US 2014/0222436 A1 Aug. 7, 2014 Renard US 2016/0098992 A1 Apr. 7, 2016 Khan US 2016/0155443 A1 June 2, 2016 Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder, Renard, and Kim. Final Act. 2. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder, Renard, and Kim, and in further view of Yang. Final Act. 7. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder, Renard, and Kim, and in further view of Khan. Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of Binder, Renard, and Kim. Particularly, the Examiner relies on Binder and Renard for teaching “the environment of teaching voice assistant services” in a vehicle; the Examiner finds “Kim teaches that each of the voice assist services (being the laptop, [TV], refrigerator, etc.), which all have speech recognition capabilities, are able to provide services and each use different recognizers (understand different commands),” such that each of Kim’s “device[s] is able to track the devices around/availability Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 4 (e.g.[,] the laptop, [TV], refrigerator, etc.).” Ans. 4; see Binder ¶¶ 130–38; Renard ¶ 92; Kim ¶¶ 54 72, and 73. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error: Kim taken alone or in alleged combination with the other references still fails to disclose at least “tracking, by a computing system integrated in a vehicle, availability of a plurality of voice assistant services within the vehicle, each of the voice assistant services configured to utilize a different respective recognizer for voice input and command interpretation, the tracking including receiving messages indicating wake words corresponding to each of the plurality of voice assistant services” as set forth in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8, 9. Particularly, Appellant contends that, although the Examiner relies on Kim for this limitation, “in Kim each device receives the voice command by the user and processes the command individually.” Id. at 8. According to Appellant, “[a]t best, Kim disclosed multiple voice recognition capable devices, without any tracking of the availability of the voice recognition capable devices.” Id. We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Kim, as cited by the Examiner, teaches any given “voice recognition capable device . . . . may store a list of preset voice commands.” Kim ¶ 46; Final Act 5. These stored commands, however, are for the voice recognition capable device itself; the commands are not for a plurality of available voice assistants. See, e.g., Kim ¶ 54 (“Each voice recognition capable device may store a list of preset voice commands,” and, for example, “only the refrigerator 240 will recognize the temperature setting voice command.”); Ans. 4. The Examiner has not established that the devices of Kim store the wake words (or otherwise track availability) of the plurality of services. See Kim ¶ 72 (“The actual processing of determining whether the identified voice command Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 5 matches up to a voice command included in a preset list of voice commands that is stored on the voice recognition capable device may be accomplished by” components of the voice recognition capable device). Kim, therefore, does not track available voice assistant services by receiving messages including the services’ respective wake words, because “in Kim each device receives the voice command by the user and processes the command individually.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner has not identified any teaching in Kim of the claimed tracking—by a computing system, availability of a plurality of voice assistant services, the tracking including receiving messages indicating wake words corresponding to each of the plurality of voice assistant services—as required by claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Binder or Renard for these limitations, nor does the Examiner explain why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 4. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the independent claims, or the claims dependent thereon. Appeal 2020-001297 Application 15/408,171 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, 19– 21 103 Binder, Renard, Kim 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, 19– 21 5, 12, 18 103 Binder, Renard, Kim, Yang 5, 12, 18 22 103 Binder, Renard, Kim, Khan 22 Overall Outcome 1–22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation