Andreas HaslingerDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 19, 20202018007912 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2020) 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. 14/609,812 01/30/2015 Andreas HASLINGER 080437.67386US 6768 23911 7590 05/19/2020 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER ROBERTS, SHAUN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2020 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): edocket@crowell.com mloren@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS HASLINGER Appeal 2018-007912 Application 14/609,812 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES B. ARPIN, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, all of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed January 30, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed December 11, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed May 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 31, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 31, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-007912 Application 14/609,812 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and device for operating a speech-controlled information system for a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operating a voice-controlled information system for a vehicle, the method comprising the acts of: sensing vehicle related events and/or vehicle states; determining at least one keyword of a voice input query of a vehicle user, the at least one keyword being determined from a set of prescribed keywords; determining a subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states, from the sensed vehicle related events and/or vehicle states, which are determined to have occurred during a predetermined period of time leading up to the voice input query; selecting, based on the determined at least one keyword, a vehicle related event and/or vehicle state from the determined subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states that were determined to have occurred during the predetermined period of time; determining if at least one condition occurrence has been met, wherein the at least one condition occurrence characterizes a respective condition that needs to be met in order for the selected vehicle related event and/or vehicle state to occur; outputting, based on said determining if the at least one condition occurrence has been met, a response to the voice input query from a set of prescribed responses, wherein the response includes information corresponding to a result of said determining if the at least one condition occurrence has been met. REJECTION Claims 1–10 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Theisen (US 2011/0093158 A1; published Apr. 21, 2011). Final Act. 5. Appeal 2018-007912 Application 14/609,812 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. For at least the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as anticipated by Theisen. Appellant argues error because Theisen does not disclose “determining a subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states . . ., which are determined to have occurred during a predetermined period of time leading up to the voice input query;” and “selecting . . . a vehicle related event and/or vehicle state from the determined subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states that were determined to have occurred during the predetermined period of time.” See Appeal Br. 5–9. In particular, Appellant rejects the Examiner’s construction of “predetermined period of time” as “just a particular time period from a sensed event, until a user submits an input with keywords corresponding to that event.” Id.; Reply Br. 3–5; Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that “[t]he predetermined period of time is not limited to a specific time period, and thus, any event sensed during some period of time is eligible to be within the subset, and is eligible for recognition.” Ans. 8. We agree with Appellant. According to the Examiner’s construction, a predetermined period of time could be a different amount for each event, rather than a fixed “lookback” amount of time from the user’s voice inquiry as required by the independent claims. Because the amount of time can be different for each event and corresponding user voice inquiry, the Examiner’s construction is the antithesis of a predetermined period of time, and, thus, is overly broad and unreasonable. See Spec. ¶¶ 5 (“stored during a predetermined period of time”), 38 (“there is therefore a high probability of Appeal 2018-007912 Application 14/609,812 4 the voice input being correlated to an event sensed and stored at a previous, in particular recent, time”). Accordingly, for at least this reason, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of all pending claims. Because our decision with respect to this issue is dispositive, we do not reach any other arguments Appellant raises. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10 102(b) Theisen 1–10 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation