FINAL REJECTION, SECOND DETAILED ACTION
Status of Prosecution
The present application 18/169,458, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application was filed on February 15, 2023 and claims priority to Japanese application JP2021-021703 filed on Feb. 16, 2022.
The Office mailed a first detailed action, non-final rejection, on January 30, 2026.
Applicant filed amendments with accompanying remarks and arguments on April 30, 2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending and is rejected. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are independent.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen, United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0025287 published on Jan. 23, 2014 in view of Ichimura et al. (“Ichimura”), United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0179147 published on June 13, 2019 in further view of Querze III et al. (“Querze”) United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0314524, published on Oct. 1, 2020.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen in view of Ichimura in view of Querze and in further view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) Korean Patent Application Publication KR101754304B1, published on August 7, 2012.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen in view of Ichimura in view of Querze and in further view of Kim et al. (“Kim 2015”) United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0199848, published on July 16, 2015.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen in view of Ichimura in view of Querze in further view of non-patent literature A. Benoit et al. (“Benoit”), “Head Nods Analysis: Interpretation of Non-Verbal Communication Gestures,” published in 2005.
Response to Remarks and Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for the submitted amendments and remarks and arguments.
The amendment to the title is accepted and entered and the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejection, Examiner initially notes that the subject matter of claim 10 has been incorporated into independent claim 1 and correspondingly with the other claims.
Applicant in essence contends that the applied reference Querze does not teach the limitation, “wherein the operations further comprise estimating the intention of the user by inputting, to a learned machine learning model, a parameter representing the motion of the head of the user, a moving speed of the user, a distance between the user and the target, and a relative angle of the user with respect to the target.” In essence, Applicant argues that Querze, nor any of the other cited art teaches estimating the intention of the user (Remarks: p. 10). Applicant asserts that the “claimed invention dynamically updates, in accordance with the estimated intention of the user, a setting related to information provisions – such as whether the description information should be more detailed, simpler, continued, or stopped – and outputs the description information in accordance with the setting after the change.” (Remarks, p. 10, emphasis added). This characterization of what “intention” should be construed as “fundamentally different in the meaning” from Querze.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. See MPEP 2141.02. Nonetheless, Applicant is reminded it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification See MPEP 2111.01. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, Examiner gives a plain meaning interpretation as to “intention” for a person having ordinary skill in the art. In the context of the claim, Examiner interpreted intention to mean a desired functionality that may be associated with a gesture, movement or other contextual data. Querze alludes to the mapping of the sensor data for performing a function (Querze, par. 0067: “These triggers and mechanisms can be used in conjunction with other actuation mechanisms described herein (e.g., voice actuation, gesture actuation, tactile actuation) to initiate functions of the personally attributed audio engine.”). Further, there is no special definition of “intention,” but merely examples of the use of the intent of the user in the context of the embodiments that Applicant cites to in his remarks supra.
Consequently, Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. However, if Applicant wishes to further clarify the use of “intention” in a supported manner, Examiner would be happy to consider that amendment on its merit.
The claims stand rejected.
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 of this title, 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.
A.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen, United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0025287 published on Jan. 23, 2014 in view of Ichimura et al. (“Ichimura”), United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0179147 published on June 13, 2019 in further view of Querze III et al. (“Querze”) United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0314524, published on Oct. 1, 2020.
As to Claim 1, Christensen teaches: An information provision system configured to provide information by sound, the information provision system comprising:
a processor (Christensen: par. 0153, processor [80]); and, wherein the processor, causes the information provision system to perform operations the operations comprising:
acquiring position information indicating a position where a user is present and line-of-sight direction information indicating a line-of-sight direction corresponding to a direction in which a face of the user faces (Christensen: par. 0069, a GPS-unit is able to acquire position information of a user; par. 0192, the pitch, yaw of the head of the user (i.e. line of sight direction) of a viewing direction toward a point of interest (POI));
estimating a target visually recognized by the user based on the position information, the line-of-sight direction information, and target position information set in advance for each of a plurality of targets that are possible targets visually recognizable by the user (Christensen: Fig. 6, par. 0182-83, POI’s within a field of view and inside a first distance threshold are identified; par. 0195, the POI’s are stored in advance in a database);
PNG
media_image1.png
816
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
outputting, by sound, description information about the target (Christensen: par. 0181, the user may request the outputting of spoken presentation related to a POI by pressing a button).
Christensen may not explicitly teach: a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the information provision system to perform operations,
outputting, by sound, description information about the target in accordance with a setting related to information provision;
detecting a motion of a head of the user;
estimating an intention of the user based on the motion of the head of the user during output of the description information;
selecting the setting in accordance with the intention of the user; and
outputting, in response to change of the setting, the description information in accordance with the setting after the change.
Ichimura teaches in general concepts related to a head-mounted display that allows for communication of intentions with head movement detection (Ichimura: Abstract). Specifically, Ichimura teaches that a sound volume may be lowered (i.e. a setting change) based on specific conditions including when the user head movement is detected in a certain direction (Ichimura: par. 0154). Ichimura also teaches a computer readable medium that carries instructions that cause a processor to perform the functions (Ichimura: par. 0070).
It would have been obvious and predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Christensen device by including computer instructions to allow for the adjustment of volume levels as taught and suggested by Ichimura. Such a person would have been motivated to do so to allow for the ease of using intuitive user interface control of head movements.
Christensen and Ichimura may not explicitly teach: wherein the operations further comprise estimating the intention of the user by inputting, to a learned machine learning model, a parameter representing the motion of the head of the user, a moving speed of the user, a distance between the user and the target, and a relative angle of the user with respect to the target.
Querze teaches in general concepts related to controlling a wearable audio device with a personally attributed audio engine (Querze: Abstract). Specifically, Querze teaches that sensors may detect the movement of a user’s head and determine the gaze direction of a user (Querze: par. 0044). Machine learning may be used to refine the feedback logic of the audio engine (Querze: par. 0114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Christensen-Ichimura disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to use machine learning models for the intent detection as taught and suggested by Querze. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the iterative improvement of the detection as specialized to a particular user.
As to Claim 4, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Ichimura further teaches: wherein the setting includes setting information related to sound output (Ichimura: par. 0154, sound volume (i.e. sound output)).
As to Claim 5, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Querze further teaches: wherein the setting includes information indicating whether to continue output of the description information (Querze: par. 0099, “the personally attributed audio engine 240 can prompt the user to initiate playback of the personally attributed audio playback for at least one additional user's wearable audio device that has entered that geographic location within a period.”).
As to Claim 6, Christensen. Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Querze further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise:
outputting a question for the user by sound (Querze: par. 0099, “the personally attributed audio engine can prompt the user to initiate playback of the personally attributed audio playback for at least one additional user's wearable audio device that has entered that geographic location within a period.”); and
estimating an answer of the user to the question based on the motion of the head of the user (Querze: par. 0045, detected motion (i.e. estimating an answer) may be used to activate an operating mode of the wearable audio device or modify playback of audio).
As to Claim 8, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Christensen further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise:
acquiring a virtual position of a sound source corresponding to each of the plurality of targets, outputting, from a portable sound output device mountable on the head of the user, and
in accordance with a virtual position of the sound source as viewed from a current position of the user, sound obtained by performing a stereophonic sound process on sound representing the description information (Chirstensen: par. 0192, for multiple POI’s, the apparent direction of the sound source is emitted for the played audio information).
As to Claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. Christensen further teaches that the computer is carriable by a user (Christensen: par. 0035, carriable on the user’s head as a headset).
As to Claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 and 11.
B.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen, United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0025287 published on Jan. 23, 2014 in view of Ichimura et al. (“Ichimura”), United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0179147 published on June 13, 2019 in view of Querze III et al. (“Querze”) United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0314524, published on Oct. 1, 2020 and in further view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) Korean Patent Application Publication KR101754304B1, published on August 7, 2012.
As to Claim 2, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Christensen, Ichimura and Querze may not explicitly teach: wherein the description information includes first description information that is a description for the plurality of targets and second description information that is a description for the plurality of targets different from the first description information, and
wherein the setting includes information indicating which of the first description information and the second description information is selected as the description information.
Kim teaches in general concepts related to providing specialized information for points of information (Kim: Abstract). Specifically, for each POI, brief, basic or additional information (i.e. different levels of detail of information) are output for a specific POI (Kim: par. 0079). User input may be applied to select the level of detail of information for a specific POI (Kim: par. 0053, according to a user selection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Christensen-Ichimura-Querze disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to allow for the different types of information for each POI as taught by Kim. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the user to reduce cognitive burden in different contexts for the POI’s of interest.
As to Claim 3, Christensen, Ichimura, Querze and Kim teach the limitations of claim 2.
Kim further teaches: wherein the description information further includes third description information that is a description for the plurality of targets different from the first description information and the second description information, wherein the first description information is a normal description for the plurality of targets, the second description information is a description more detailed than the first description information (Kim: par. 0079, there is brief, basic or additional)), and
the third description information is a description simpler than the first description information, and wherein the setting includes information indicating which of the first description information, the second description information, and the third description information is selected as the description information (Kim: par. 0079, there is brief, basic or additional; par. 0053, according to a user selection).
C.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen, United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0025287 published on Jan. 23, 2014 in view of Ichimura et al. (“Ichimura”), United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0179147 published on June 13, 2019 in view of Querze III et al. (“Querze”) United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0314524, published on Oct. 1, 2020 and in further view of Kim et al. (“Kim 2015”) United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0199848, published on July 16, 2015.
As to Claim 7, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Christensen, Ichimura and Querze may not explicitly teach: wherein the plurality of targets include a moving object, and wherein the operations further comprise estimating that, in a case in which a state in which the moving object is present in a range in which eyes of the user can see continues for a preset period, the moving object is the target visually recognized by the user.
Kim 2015 teaches in general concepts related to controlling an augmented reality device using the detection of a gaze of a user on a target object (Kim 2015: Abstract). Specifically, Kim 2015 teaches that a target object may be a moving object that is detected by the gaze detection system (Kim 2015: par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Christensen-Ichimura-Querze disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to track moving targets as taught and suggested by Kim 2015. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for moving POI’s to be also given audio descriptions in Christensen’s system.
D.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable by Christensen, United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0025287 published on Jan. 23, 2014 in view of Ichimura et al. (“Ichimura”), United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0179147 published on June 13, 2019 in view of Querze III et al. (“Querze”) United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0314524, published on Oct. 1, 2020 in further view of non-patent literature A. Benoit et al. (“Benoit”), “Head Nods Analysis: Interpretation of Non-Verbal Communication Gestures,” published in 2005.
As to Claim 9, Christensen, Ichimura and Querze teach the limitations of claim 1.
Querze further teaches language identification may be also fed into the personal audio engine in considering how to interpret the audio control commands (Querze: par. 0105).
Christensen, Ichimura and Querze may not explicitly teach: the operations further comprise: acquiring intention definition data which defines a non-verbal motion corresponding to a culture to which a language to be used by the user belongs, and estimating the intention of the user based on the intention definition data and the motion of the head of the user.
Benoit teaches in general a real time frequency method to detect movements of heads and to interpret the head nods as non-verbal communication (Benoit: Abstract). Specifically, Benoit notes that certain cultures have different systems of semantic meaning for the different head movements (Benoit: Sec. V.2, “Note that our algorithm interprets head nods in regard of a particular culture. Indeed, in some cultures (e.g. Indian), head nods should be interpreted the other way around i.e. other motion orientations and a different motion sequence.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Christensen-Ichimura-Querze disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to identify the user language as taught and suggested by Querze and to then utilize that language to infer the culture and thus the head gesture meanings as taught and suggested by Benoit. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the real time interpretation of the head motion movements (Benoit: VI).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gordon et al., US Patent 11,343,613 (May 24, 2022) (describing a location-based audio information system);
Arrasvuori., US Patent Application Publication 2011/0047509 (Feb.. 24, 2011) (describing POI grouping on a map with different levels of detail);
Parikh et al., US PG Pub 2021/0132769 (May 6, 2021) (describing a user’s intent (engaged or disengaged) being assessed based on face orientation and other parameters).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/JAMES T TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights