QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001412 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 15/639,826 06/30/2017 Asif Iqbal Mohammad 1414-336US01/170628 7581 15150 7590 03/18/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER BLANKENAGEL, BRYAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte ASIF IQBAL MOHAMMAD, SREEKANTH NARAYANASWAMY, RISHABH TYAGI, and ERIK VISSER _______________ Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-19, and 21-30. Appellant has canceled claims 2 and 20. See Amdt. 2, 6 (filed Nov. 20, 2019). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We affirm. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to assigning control of a functional unit in a vehicle to an identified in-cabin vehicle zone based on the detection of a spoken command from the identified in-cabin vehicle zone. See Spec. ¶¶ 4-5, 26. In a disclosed embodiment, Appellant describes a vehicle may comprise a plurality of in- cabin vehicle zones (e.g., driver, front passenger, rear-left passenger, and rear-right passenger). See Spec. 54, Fig. 2A. In addition, the vehicle includes “an interface device configured to receive a spoken command to identify an in-cabin vehicle zone of two or more in-cabin vehicle zones of the vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 5. The Specification further describes the interface device is coupled to an in-cabin vehicle control unit, which is also coupled to a functional unit. Spec. ¶ 5. The functional unit controls a function (e.g., climate control, infotainment device) within the vehicle. Spec. ¶ 5. Each in- cabin vehicle zone may have its own microphone, or the vehicle may have a microphone that is configured to determine the direction of received audio. See Spec. ¶¶ 37, 42-43. By identifying a voice command associated with a particular in-cabin vehicle zone, control of a functional unit may be assigned to the associated in-cabin vehicle zone, thereby allowing an individual occupant to control functional units of the vehicle. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 27. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A vehicle comprising: an interface device configured to receive a spoken command; and Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 3 a functional unit configured to control a function within the vehicle; an in-cabin vehicle control unit, coupled to the interface device and the functional unit, the in-cabin vehicle control unit being configured to: identify a first in-cabin vehicle zone of two or more in-cabin vehicle zones currently in control of the functional unit; determine, based on a directionality of the spoken command, an origination location of the spoken command; and select, based on the origination location of the spoken command, a second in-cabin vehicle zone of the two or more in-cabin vehicle zones, the second in-cabin vehicle zone being different from the first in-cabin vehicle zone; cease controlling the functional unit using audio input received from the first in-cabin vehicle zone prior to transferring control to the functional unit using the audio input received from the second in-cabin vehicle zone based on the receipt of the spoken command at the interface device; store, to a command buffer, data processed from the received spoken command; and transfer, based on the data processed from the received spoken command, control of the functional unit from the first in-cabin vehicle zone to the second in-cabin vehicle zone; and a memory device that implements the command buffer. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24-26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gratke et al. (US 2008/0118080 A1; May 22, 2008) (“Gratke”); Wingate et al. (US Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 4 2016/0371977 A1; Dec. 22, 2016) (“Wingate”); and Chen et al. (US 2015/0197136 A1; July 16, 2015) (“Chen”). Final Act. 5-19. 2. Claims 4-6, 13, 14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gratke, Wingate, Chen, and Breed (US 2008/0051946 A1; Feb. 28, 2008). Final Act. 19-24. 3. Claims 11, 12, 17, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gratke, Wingate, Chen, and Inoue (US 2016/0284337 A1; Sept. 29, 2016). Final Act. 24-29. 4. Claims 18 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gratke, Wingate, Chen, and Nakayama (US 2015/0248897 A1; Sept. 3, 2015). Final Act. 29-30. ANALYSIS2 Claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 17-19, and 21-30 Appellant disputes that the prior art teaches an in-cabin vehicle control unit configured to “cease controlling the functional unit using audio input received from the first in-cabin vehicle zone prior to transferring control to the functional unit using the audio input received from the second in-cabin vehicle zone based on the receipt of the spoken command at the interface device,” as recited in independent claim 1 (and commensurately recited in independent claims 19, 29, and 30). Appeal Br. 7-16, 18-19; Reply Br. 3-6. In particular, Appellant argues that Wingate does not teach 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed July 13, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed December 21, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed December 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 5 ceasing control of a functional unit based on receipt of a spoken command at the interface device. Appeal Br. 8-10. Appellant argues that the Examiner conflates ceasing control of the functional unit with Wingate’s teaching of (i) prohibiting the driver from controlling a navigation system while the vehicle is in motion, or (ii) transferring control from one in-vehicle zone to another. Appeal Br. 10, 13-14. Moreover, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s reliance of Wingate is based on speculation. Appeal Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 4- 5. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Wingate. Wingate generally relates to “providing intelligent vehicular systems and services.” Wingate ¶ 7. Wingate describes the intelligent vehicular system can provide, inter alia, an enhanced user experience provided by an intelligent control system. Wingate ¶ 107. Wingate further describes the intelligent control system may comprise a control signal generator configured to control various systems within the vehicle (e.g., climate control, infotainment, windows). See Wingate ¶¶ 107, 125, 137. Wingate describes control of the various functions may be performed using voice recognition techniques. Wingate ¶ 129. In a disclosed embodiment, Wingate describes an “Awesome knob.” Wingate ¶ 134. The “Awesome knob” combines voice control and a tactile interface into a single knob. Wingate ¶ 134. The “Awesome knob” includes a voice recognition system and “only requires a user to specify the variable the user wants to manipulate.” Wingate ¶ 134. Wingate describes “the functionality of the Awesome knob can change based on whether it is the driver or the passenger that controls the haptic user interface.” Wingate ¶ 138. Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 6 In addition, Wingate describes: [i]n another example, the Awesome knob can detect which direction a voice command is coming from (the driver’s side or the passenger’s side) using acoustic source detection methods. The Awesome knob may be used to adjust the climate control system in the car, and, in one example, it may adjust the passenger-side climate system if the passenger is interacting with the knob, and adjust the driver-side climate system if the driver is interacting with the knob. Wingate ¶ 138. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments that “Wingate is not relied upon to teach prohibiting a user from controlling various aspects of the vehicle.” Ans. 28. Rather, the Examiner relies on Wingate “to teach that the system ceases control for one user when another user speaks a voice command.” Ans. 28. To that point, the Examiner explains that “[w]hen the passenger controls the [(Awesome)] knob to adjust the climate system, control by the driver of the knob and system ceases.” Ans. 29. In addition, the Examiner finds that, similar to Wingate, Gratke also teaches the concept “that one user operates the system at a time.” Ans. 29 (citing Gratke ¶ 75 (describing that the system identifies the vehicle occupant that issued the voice command as the current speaking occupant)). The Examiner further notes that Gratke teaches when the system identifies where the current speaking occupant is located, the system switches off the other microphones. Ans. 29-30 (citing Gratke ¶¶ 76-77). Thus, when a voice command is received from an occupant located in a different in-cabin vehicle zone, the Examiner finds both Wingate and Gratke teach the transfer of control, which includes ceasing control by the previous user. Ans. 30. Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 7 As an initial matter, we disagree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 8-10) that the Examiner’s reliance on Wingate is speculation. Rather, based on our review of Wingate (see supra), we determine the Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that one user controls Wingate’s “Awesome knob” at a time. That is, if the passenger is interacting with the knob, the passenger- side climate settings (for example) are adjusted and if the driver is interacting with the knob, the driver-side settings are adjusted. See Wingate ¶ 138. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and explanation that as part of the act of transferring control of a function from a first occupant (e.g., the driver) to a second occupant (e.g., the passenger), control by the first occupant is ceased prior to being established with the second occupant. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, we agree with the Examiner that Wingate teaches, or reasonably suggests, ceasing control of a functional unit by the occupant of a first in-cabin vehicle zone prior to transferring control of the functional unit to the occupant of a second in- cabin vehicle zone. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 19, 29, and 30, which each commensurately recite the disputed limitation and for which Appellant relies on the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14-16. In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-6, 11-14, 17, 18, and 22-28, which depend directly or indirectly from their respective base Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 8 independent claim and were not argued separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 7, 14-16, 18-19; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 7-10, 15, and 16 Appellant argues claims 7-10, 15, and 16 as a group, electing claim 16 as representative of the group. Appeal Br. 16-17. Claim 16 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “the in-cabin control unit being further configured to amplify audio input received from a respective microphone of the selected in-cabin vehicle zone.” Appellant asserts that the relied upon portions of Gratke merely describe switching between cardioid or hypercardioid microphones, or microphone pick-up patterns, and that the microphones may be steered. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further asserts that the microphone selection and adjustments in Gratke allow for the desired audio to be better captured from a desired location. Appeal Br. 17. However, Appellant argues “[w]hile improving the signal-to-noise ratio may have the appearance of amplifying the signal, no such amplification is performed. That is, amplification is well known to involve an increase in a gain of the input signal.” Appeal Br. 16. As an initial matter, we note that although Appellant grouped claims 7-10, 15, and 16 together, the limitation of claim 16 is not present in the other claims. Thus, Appellant’s arguments related to claim 16 are inapposite to the Examiner’s findings and rejection of claims 7-10 and 15. As such, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10 and 15. In response, the Examiner explains that increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the received audio signal in claim 16 is interpreted as an Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 9 amplification of the desired input signal. Ans. 30. “As the claims [(and Specification)] do not specify how the amplification is performed, this relative amplification teaches the claimed limitation.” Ans. 30. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s explanation and reasoning (see generally Reply Br.), and consequently, we are not persuaded of error. Moreover, the Examiner’s explanation is consistent with Grate’s teachings. As Gratke explains, the pickup pattern of a microphone “is an indication of sensitivity to speech [(i.e., detected audio)] arriving at different angles about a central axis of the microphone.” Gratke ¶ 63. By adjusting the shape and/or magnitude of a pickup pattern of the microphone, as taught by Gratke, the strength of the desired signal is increased relative to the undesired noise signals. See Gratke ¶¶ 60, 65, 76-78, Figs. 5-8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-19, and 21- 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 7-10, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24-26, 29, 30 103 Gratke, Wingate, Chen 1, 3, 7-10, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24-26, 29, 30 4-6, 13, 14, 22, 23 103 Gratke, Wingate, Chen, Breed 4-6, 13, 14, 22, 23 Appeal 2021-001412 Application 15/639,826 10 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11, 12, 17, 27 103 Gratke, Wingate, Chen, Inoue 11, 12, 17, 27 18, 28 103 Gratke, Wingate, Chen, Nakayama 18, 28 Overall Outcome 1, 3-19, 21-30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED