DETAILED ACTION
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 .
According to paper filed January 31st 2024, claims 1-20 are pending for examination with an April 24th 2018 priority date under 35 USC 120 & 35 USC 119(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 13-20, the “mental state” or the “current mental state” is unclear. It is unclear how to determine the mental state and further unclear how to rank or categorize the mental state due to lack of provided written description. It is therefore unclear how to determine the corresponding controlling operations.
For claim examination purpose, the “mental state” is construed and cited as “mood” in the present Office action until further clarification provided.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claims 3 and 4, a trip of “a commute, an errand, a road trip alone, a road trip with friends, a carpool,” or “a trip with family” has nothing to do with the claimed vehicle method involving a user interface. Claim 3 fails to further limit its parent claims 1 and 2. For examination purpose, claim 3 is rejected for the rationale given for claim 1 in the present Office action until further clarification provided. Claim 4 is rejected for the citation of “search database with trip parameter”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500), hereinafter Jarek.
Claim 1
“receiving, at one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a user interface of a vehicle, one or more trip parameters” Jarek [0004][0085] teaches a user system in a vehicle that includes a processing subsystem of one or more computing devices having memory and processing and communication hardware;
Jarek teaches the “trip parameters” referring to qualities of the trip in [0007] user inputs, [0085] sensors, [0094] GPS units, and [0103] infotainment.
“receiving, at the user interface, a user selection of a music library; in response to the user selection being communicated to the one or more computer processors, preparing a music playlist using the one or more computer processors” Jarek [0171] teaches a summary screen provides trip information to the rider after the camera has stopped recording the ride or when any other parameter has been met,
“wherein the music playlist is based at least in part on the one or more trip parameters; and in response to receiving a user command at the user interface, playing the music playlist” Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle.
Claim 10
“receiving, at the one or more computer processors, one or more modified trip parameters indicative of a traffic change; preparing, in response to the traffic change, using the one or more computer processors, a modified playlist; and playing the modified playlist” Jarek [0134] teaches a listing of recent destinations through the actuation of input, once navigation has been selected, display returns to map/navigation screen layout to provide updates on the location of the vehicle and instructions to selected destination.
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500), hereinafter Jarek, and further in view of McGowan et al. (WO 2017/200971), hereinafter McGowan.
Claim 2
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a trip type associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters” McGowan [0081] teaches travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database,
“wherein the music playlist is prepared using music tracks associated through the one or more databases with the trip type” Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle; and McGowan [0081] teaches a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database.
Jarek and McGowan disclose analogous art. McGowan is analogous because it is in the field of interactive dynamically updatable multidimensional user interface. Jarek does not spell out the “querying database” as recited above. Said feature is taught in McGowan. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of McGowan (McGowan [0081]: travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database) into Jarek to enhance its data collection function via database querying.
Claim 3
“wherein the trip type comprises one of a commute, an errand, a road trip alone, a road trip with friends, a carpool, and a trip with family” Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle.
Claim 4
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a trip type associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters, wherein the trip type comprises one of a commute, an errand, a road trip alone, a road trip with friends, a carpool, and a trip with family” McGowan [0081] teaches travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database.
Claim 5
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine one of a level of music tempo, a level of music approachability, a level of music engagement, and a level of music sentiment, the determined level associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters” Jarek [0171] teaches trip parameter; and McGowan [0081] teaches travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database, which is connected to a Trusted Search Server (TSS) that can render searched content;
“preparing the music playlist at least in part using the determined level” Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle.
Claim 6
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a level of music tempo associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters, wherein the music tempo is defined as beats per minute” McGowan [0081] teaches travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database, which is connected to a Trusted Search Server (TSS) that can render searched content; and DiMaria [0026] teaches a group of rhythm types, a range of musical tempos, or any suitable combination thereof. Tempo is measured by beats per minutes.
Claim 7
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a level of music approachability associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters, wherein the music approachability is defined by one or more of chord progression, time signature, genre, motion of melody, complexity of texture, and instrument composition” McGowan [0081] teaches travel services servers using various devices and a content server store various types of data related to the content and services provided by content server in an associated content database, which is connected to a Trusted Search Server (TSS) that can render searched content; and
Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle.
Claims 8-9, 11-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500), hereinafter Jarek, and further in view of DiMaria et al. (US 2013/0178962), hereinafter DiMaria.
Claim 8
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a level of music engagement associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters, wherein the music engagement is defined by one or more of dynamics, pan effect, harmony complexity, vocabulary range, and word count” DiMaria [0002][0030] teaches music sound effect of enabling the user to directly browse and select from a richer set of aggressive mood categories.
Jarek and DiMaria disclose analogous art. DiMaria is analogous because it is in the field of providing a user interface to media files. Jarek does not spell out the “music engagement through databases with trip parameters” as recited above. Said feature is taught in DiMaria. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of DiMaria (DiMaria [0002][0030]: music sound effect of enabling the user to directly browse and select from a richer set of aggressive mood categories) into Jarek to enhance its music engagement functions.
Claim 9
“querying one or more databases using the one or more computer processors to determine a level of music sentiment associated through the one or more databases with the one or more trip parameters, wherein the music sentiment is defined by one or more of chord type, chord progression, and lyric content” DiMaria [0013] teaches a user interface generator forms a media system where the mood category may be replaced with attributes that are suitable for categorizing the media file, e.g., genre origin, tempo, rhythm, melody, lyrics theme, playback duration, and playback frequency.
Claim 11
“wherein the music playlist is based at least in part on a key of each song so that harmonically compatible songs are placed next to one another in the music playlist” DiMaria [0055][0056] teaches a playlist that lists media files and data structures include a tempo histogram and a harmonic transition strength, a major key, and a minor key.
Claim 12
“wherein the music playlist comprises some partial tracks, and wherein some transitions between playlist tracks comprise a fading out of one track while fading in a similar-sounding portion of another track” DiMaria [0025] teaches transitions from one mood category to another may be present with cross-fading or other transitional audio-visual treatments.
Claim 18
“receiving, at one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a user interface of a vehicle, informational data” Jarek [0004][0085] teaches a user system in a vehicle that includes a processing subsystem of one or more computing devices having memory and processing and communication hardware;
“using the one or more computer processors and using the informational data, determining a mental state of a traveler within the vehicle” DiMaria [0002][0030] teaches music sound effect of enabling the user to directly browse and select from a richer set of aggressive mood categories;
“receiving, at the user interface, one or more user selections; in response to the one or more user selections being communicated to the one or more computer processors, preparing a music playlist using the one or more computer processors, wherein the music playlist is based at least in part on the determined mental state; and playing the music playlist” Jarek [0173] teaches a discoverable mode which learns the song, predetermined playlists, or genres that the operator wish to listen to during a ride on vehicle.
Claim 19
“determining the mental state at least in part based on one or more of the traveler's use of infotainment in the vehicle, a gripping force on a steering wheel by the traveler, a tone of voice of the traveler, and a speed of the vehicle” DiMaria [0014] teaches initiating one or more actions pertinent to the mood category, e.g., displaying the playlist or editing the playlist.
Claim 20
“modifying the playlist based at least in part on a determined change in the mental state of the traveler” DiMaria [0014] teaches initiating one or more actions pertinent to the mood category, e.g., displaying the playlist or editing the playlist.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500), hereinafter Jarek, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2019/0122661), hereinafter Hansen.
Claim 13
“receiving, at one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a user interface of a vehicle, one or more trip parameters” Jarek [0004][0085] teaches a user system in a vehicle that includes a processing subsystem of one or more computing devices having memory and processing and communication hardware;
“determining, by the one or more computer processors, using data from one or more sensors communicatively coupled with the one or more computer processors and using the trip parameters, a current mental state of a traveler in the vehicle” Jarek teaches the “trip parameters” referring to qualities of the trip in [0007] user inputs, [0085] sensors, [0094] GPS units, and [0103] infotainment;
“initiating, using the one or more computer processors, interaction with the traveler using an interactive chatbot, wherein an interaction content of the interactive chatbot is determined by the one or more computer processors based at least in part on the current mental state” Hansen [0061] teaches VRS may repeat the topic to provide the vehicle occupant an understanding what kind of suggestions will be made and allow the occupant to ensure VRS is on the right topic, and VRS may verbally provide suggestions to the vehicle occupants; VRS can include supportive artificial intelligence-based executable instructions such as a chatbot.
Jarek and Hansen disclose analogous art. Hansen is analogous because it is in the field of detecting cues in conversational speech. Jarek does not spell out the “interaction with the traveler using an interactive chatbot” as recited above. Said feature is taught in Hansen. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Hansen (Hansen [0061]: VRS can include supportive artificial intelligence-based executable instructions such as a chatbot) into Jarek to enhance its interactive functions among a vehicle passengers via a chatbot.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500), hereinafter Jarek, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2019/0122661), hereinafter Hansen, and DiMaria et al. (US 2013/0178962), hereinafter DiMaria.
Claim 14
“determining the mental state at least in part based on one or more of the traveler's use of infotainment in the vehicle, a gripping force on a steering wheel by the traveler, a tone of voice of the traveler, and a speed of the vehicle” Jarek [0103] teaches infotainment; and DiMaria [0088] teaches a display where the interactive controller may be configured to receive the sequence of inputs as a selection of multiple mood categories.
Jarek, Hansen, and DiMaria disclose analogous art. Hansen is analogous because it is in the field of detecting cues in conversational speech. DiMaria is analogous because it is in the field of providing a user interface to media files. Jarek does not spell out the “interaction with the traveler using an interactive chatbot” as recited above. Said feature is taught in Hansen. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Hansen (Hansen [0061]: VRS can include supportive artificial intelligence-based executable instructions such as a chatbot) into Jarek to enhance its interactive functions among a vehicle passengers via a chatbot. Still, Jarek does not spell out the “mental state based on the traveler's use of infotainment in the vehicle” as recited above. Said feature is taught in DiMaria. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of DiMaria (DiMaria [0088]: a display where the interactive controller may be configured to receive the sequence of inputs as a selection of multiple mood categories) into Jarek to enhance its infotainment determination function according to the traveler’s mental state (i.e., the mood of the traveler).
Claim 15
“receiving from the traveler, through the one or more user interfaces, a selected level of control, wherein the interaction content of the interactive chatbot is determined by the one or more computer processors based at least in part on the selected level of control” Jarek [0086] teaches an interface controller that performs certain operations to control one or more sub-systems, and user selection of navigation button to present map/navigation screen layout on the display;
“adjusting one of a temperature within the vehicle, a volume, and a music playlist, using the one or more computer processors, based at least in part on the selected level of control and on the current mental state” Jarek [0148] teaches display screen including information about vehicle speed, coolant or oil temperature; and DiMaria [0088] teaches a display where the interactive controller may be configured to receive the sequence of inputs as a selection of multiple mood categories.
Claim 16
“entertaining a child in the vehicle with the interactive chatbot by, in response to determining that the child is disengaged relative to a first activity selected from the group consisting of music, interactive games, storytelling, and interactive conversation, switching to a different activity selected from the group” Hansen [0061] teaches VRS may repeat the topic to provide the vehicle occupant an understanding what kind of suggestions will be made and allow the occupant to ensure VRS is on the right topic, and VRS may verbally provide suggestions to the vehicle occupants; VRS can include supportive artificial intelligence-based executable instructions such as a chatbot.
Claim 17
“using the interactive chatbot, in response to a lull in a conversation between vehicle occupants of a predetermined amount of time, one of discussing news, sharing a dilemma, and starting a game” Hansen [0061] teaches recognition of “long silent pauses between speakers” and “after a long pause between conversant”, VRS may verbally provide suggestions to the vehicle occupants; VRS can include supportive artificial intelligence-based executable instructions such as a chatbot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571)272-6088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 571-270-7915. 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.
/Ruay Ho/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126