DETAILED ACTION
This Communication is a First Action on the Merits (FAOM). Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al (2017/0372268 A1).
As per Claim 1, Han teaches a method for organizing a conversation via mobile radio between a calling subscriber and a subscriber to be called, wherein the subscriber to be called is located in a motor vehicle, in particular as a vehicle driver, and wherein the calling subscriber uses a first subscriber device (Tgl) and the subscriber to be called uses a second subscriber device (Tg2) (Figures 1, 3 and 4 – References 110, 142, 302 and 312; Page 1, Paragraphs [0016] and [0018]; Page 2, Paragraphs [0020] and [0021]; Page 4, Paragraph [0039]; Page 5, Paragraph [0050]).
(Note: In paragraph [0016], Han describes a logic rules-based learning model – i.e. artificial intelligence [AI] model that identifies and applies scheduling time and parameters for a communication event to assist users to identify and utilize a best contextual and schematic time to conduct a communication session [e.g. phone call]. In paragraph [0018], Han describes a preferred time based on a given context of a user activity [e.g. talking while driving – user in a motor vehicle])
(Note: In paragraphs [0020] and [0021], Han describes computing devices as including a smartphone. Han also describes wearable devices [i.e. smartwatches]. In paragraph [0039], Han describes constraints associated with phone calls as including: required duration for the call, tendency to talk while driving, preferred location for call [e.g. car] and environmental constraints. In paragraph [0050], Han describes an distribution of user calls by location indicating in an example that 80% of user calls occur in the car)
Han also teaches receiving a conversation request sent from the first subscriber device by the second subscriber device (Figure 4 – References 452, 454 and 468; Page 4, Paragraphs [0041] and [0044]); determining, by the motor vehicle, first information that is necessary to determine a current driving situation complexity and second information that is necessary to determine a future driving situation complexity (Figure 2 – References 212, 214 and 216; Page 3, Paragraph [0030]).
(Note: Figure 4 is an illustration of a sequence diagram to schedule an optimal time to conduct a conversation via mobile radio between a calling subscriber and a subscriber to be called, wherein the subscriber to be called is located in a motor vehicle. In paragraph [0030], Han describes external data sources that include weather data, traffic data and known event data. Han provides an example of a user driving in a traffic jam having the ability to immediately talk and an additional example of a user who happens to be experiencing inclement weather being unable to speak for an extended period of time)
Han further teaches using at least the second information and optionally also the first information to determine a possible call time or an interval in which a call can be started (Figure 4 – References 466 and 468; Page 3, Paragraphs [0029] and [0030]; Page 4, Paragraphs [0043] and [0044]); transmitting an indication about the possible call time or interval to a scheduling unit of the first subscriber device (Figure 4 – References 470, 472 and 474; Page 4, Paragraphs [0044] and [0045]).
(Note: In paragraph [0029] and [0030], Han describes online logic responsible for computing recommended optimal timeslots for the intent of a communication. Han describes leveraging the external data with the online and offline logic to determine optimal time slots for communications which are then transmitted to parties with whom communication is sought as shown in Figure 4)
As per Claim 3, Han teaches wherein the second information relates to the driving situation complexity during a scheduled conversation duration as described in Claim 1 (Note: See weather data, traffic data and known event data).
As per Claim 6, Han teaches wherein an indication about a desired conversation duration is received with the conversation request and this indication is also used in the step of using the at least second and optionally first information as described in Claim 1. (Note: The time slots described by Han read on the recited conversation duration)
As per Claim 8, Han teaches wherein the first information relates to a position of the motor vehicle, a traffic density around the motor vehicle, the familiarity of the route traveled by the subscriber to be called, a stress level of the subscriber to be called measured by interior sensors of the motor vehicle, data measured by external sensors, equipment features of the motor vehicle, the occupancy of seats in the motor vehicle and/or an indication about telephone calls made by other subscribers in the motor vehicle as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 9, Han teaches wherein the second information relates to a navigation route provided by the motor vehicle, a traffic density on the navigation route and/or a traffic density on at least one alternative navigation route, an indication about other vehicle occupants and/or an indication about telephone calls made and/or scheduled by other vehicle occupants in the motor vehicle as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 11, Han teaches a motor vehicle having sensors and an evaluation device for detecting a current driving situation complexity and a navigation device, wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a future driving situation complexity based on navigation data in the navigation device and, depending on this, to schedule in advance the acceptance of a telephone call or video call as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 12, Han teaches wherein the second information relates to the driving situation complexity during a scheduled conversation duration as described in Claim 1.
As per Claims 14 and 16, Han teaches wherein an indication about a desired conversation duration is received with the conversation request and this information is also used in the step of using the at least second and optionally first information as described in Claims 1 and 3 above.
As per Claim 20, Han teaches wherein the first information relates to a position of the motor vehicle, a traffic density around the motor vehicle, the familiarity of the route traveled by the subscriber to be called, a stress level of the subscriber to be called measured by interior sensors of the motor vehicle, data measured by external sensors, equipment features of the motor vehicle, the occupancy of seats in the motor vehicle and/or an indication about telephone calls made by other subscribers in the motor vehicle as described in Claim 1.
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) 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (2017/0372268 A1) in view of Konrardy et al (2021/0116256 A1).
As per Claim 2, Han teaches the method according to Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the motor vehicle transmits the first and the second information to the second subscriber device. However, Konrardy teaches wherein the motor vehicle transmits the first and the second information to the second subscriber device (Page 7, Paragraphs [0055] and [0056]).
(Note: In paragraphs [0055] and [0056], Konrardy describes a vehicle network with a plurality of vehicles wherein each vehicle has a vehicle controller and an on-board computer. Konrardy indicates that each vehicle is configured for inter-vehicle communication such as vehicle-to-vehicle wireless communication which the Examiner is considering as reading on the claimed language)
The combination of Han and Konrardy teaches a data processing device then carries out the step of using the at least second and optionally first information, and wherein the second subscriber device sends the indication wirelessly to the first subscriber device as described in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 4, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein an indication about a desired conversation duration is received with the conversation request and this information is also used in the step of using the at least second and optionally first information as described in Claim 2. (Note: In paragraph [0039], Han indicates that phone call have constraints that do not apply to in person communication which include among other things required call duration – i.e. an indication about a desired conversation duration)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 5, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein an indication of the actually possible conversation duration, which optionally includes the provision of interruptions, is transmitted to the scheduling unit of the first subscriber device as described in Claim 1. (Note: In paragraph [0027], Han describes online and offline logic that allows two or more users to schedule or reschedule a phone call between them at a plurality of proposed time slots in the day. The logic evaluates elements of the respective user’s day and evaluates user common behavior [i.e. provision of interruptions that commonly occur during a user day])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 7, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein the motor vehicle or the second subscriber device receives an input for setting a limit for the conversation complexity and this limit is taken into account for the setting (Note: In paragraph [0030], Han indicates that if a user is in an environment where inclement weather is occurring then a user may not be able to communicate for a period of time. Additionally, Han describes how a user may be engaged in a heavy traffic situation and may need to have their attention focused on the environment and be unable to talk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 10, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein a call is made from the first subscriber device to the second subscriber device and it is continuously checked, in particular by the motor vehicle, whether the requirements for a conversation still exist, and corresponding indications are sent to the scheduling unit or to an output device of the first subscriber device (Han: Page 4, Paragraph [0037]; Page 5, Paragraphs [0047] – [0049]).
(Note: In paragraph [0037], Han indicates that data is reported through the use of online user data/state reporting and by mobile/wearable sensors. Based on the data inputs from reporting and external data a machine model is calculated. Han also indicates the process may continue to keep the model updated. In paragraphs [0047] – [0049], Han the construction of a smart timeline that takes into consideration information obtained from external data sources [weather/traffic/known events] to updates events, adjust and recalculate timelines using time-based and activity-based semantic recommendations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 13 and 15, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein an indication about a desired conversation duration is received with the conversation request and this information is also used in the step of using the at least second and optionally first information as described in Claims 1 and 2 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 17 and 18, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein an indication about a desired conversation duration is received with the conversation request and this indication is also used in the step of using the at least second and optionally first information as described above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
As per Claim 19, the combination of Han and Konrardy teaches wherein the first information relates to a position of the motor vehicle, a traffic density around the motor vehicle, the familiarity of the route traveled by the subscriber to be called, a stress level of the subscriber to be called measured by interior sensors of the motor vehicle, data measured by external sensors, equipment features of the motor vehicle, the occupancy of seats in the motor vehicle and/or an indication about telephone calls made by other subscribers in the motor vehicle as described in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Han with the method taught by Konrardy to predict the likelihood of someone being available and receptive to receiving an incoming communication at a given time significantly boosting the chances of a successful and effective call
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ariannezhad et al (2021/0089938 A1), HASELHOFF et al (2023/0281442 A1), Lyle et al (7,747,458 B2), Dhumal et al (2022/0383265 A1), Boonn et al (2024/0112790 A1), KUMAR et al (2023/0135380 A1) and Joshi et al (2017/0316385 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods for implementing the scheduling of communications in communication networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693