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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on August 6, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7, filed August 6, 2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of paragraphs 0025 and 0026 have been withdrawn.
It is noted that paragraph 0074 of Shintani does not appear to have any disclosure on using a smartphone camera or wearable device to estimate a user’s emotional level.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on August 6, 2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0025, it is unclear how to rank a single value that is obtained by averaging the scores.
In paragraph 0025, it is unclear how to rank a single value that is obtained by averaging the weights.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 claim 1, lines 4-5, and claim 7, lines 3-4, the limitation “influence levels, respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if each influence level includes multiple types of input information, or if each influence level includes a single type of input information.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, and claim 7, lines 5-6, the limitation “a corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant is the same as the plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle previously recited (claim 1, lines 4-5, and claim 7, lines 3-4).
In claim 2, line 6, the limitation “information acquired from the portable device or the wearable device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the information acquired is referring to the corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant (claim 1, lines 6-7, and claim 7, lines 5-6), the plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle previously recited (claim 1, lines 4-5 and claim 7, lines 3-4), or both.
In claim 3, line 2, the limitation “the information” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the information acquired is referring to the corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant (claim 1, lines 6-7, and claim 7, lines 5-6, respectively), the plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle (claim 1, lines 4-5 and claim 7, lines 3-4), or information acquired from the portable device or the wearable device previously recited (claim 2, line 6).
In claim 4, line 2, the limitation “outside-vehicle information” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the outside-vehicle information is the same as the corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant (claim 1, lines 6-7, and claim 7, lines 5-6, respectively) or the plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle (claim 1, lines 4-5 and claim 7, lines 3-4).
In claim 5, line 2, the limitation “outside-vehicle information” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the outside-vehicle information is the same as the corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant (claim 1, lines 6-7, and claim 7, lines 5-6, respectively) or the plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle (claim 1, lines 4-5 and claim 7, lines 3-4).
Claims 2-6 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not
clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US 2016/0104486) in view of Byun (US 2024/0087597).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Penilla discloses a vehicle comprising:
at least one processor, and at least one memory having a program, when executed, causing the at least one processor to be programmed to:
a plurality of types of input information obtained before an occupant boards the vehicle (Penilla, Fig. 1 & [0129] regarding using a user's portable electronics (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop) to capture the user's voice & Fig. 1 regarding the person being outside of the vehicle. All of the user's portable electronic devices are used to capture a user's voice);
control an in-vehicle device including at least one of an air conditioning device, an audio device, and a lighting device based on the determined emotion (Penilla, [0136] regarding using the user's voice input to determine their mood and emotions and using their mood and emotions to modify a response provided by a vehicle & [0298] regarding the vehicle automatically changing the temperature or turning up the radio based on the tone (i.e., emotion) of the user).
Penilla does not teach causing the at least one processor to be programmed to:
estimate influence levels, each of the influence levels indicating a degree of influence of a corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant; and
perform a comprehensive evaluation of the influence levels to determine an emotion that the occupant has had since before boarding the vehicle.
Byun teaches causing the at least one processor to be programmed to:
estimate influence levels, each of the influence levels indicating a degree of influence of a corresponding type of input information on an emotion of the occupant (Byun, [0098] regarding determining an audio emotion confidence score & [0104] regarding determining an image emotion confidence score); and
perform a comprehensive evaluation of the influence levels to determine an emotion that the occupant has had since before boarding the vehicle (Byun, [0105] regarding selecting the emotion based on the highest confidence score between the audio emotion and the image emotion).
Penilla and Byun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla to incorporate determining emotion using confidence scores, as disclosed by Byun, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining emotion more accurately.
Regarding claim 6, Penilla in view of Byun teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
perform learning all of a result of the comprehensive evaluation, a manner of controlling the in-vehicle device, and an emotional change of the occupant upon controlling the in-vehicle device, and
control the in-vehicle device based on a result of the learning (Penilla,[0118] regarding a voice profile for a user to learn a plurality of voice inputs made by the user based on prior sessions and determining the vehicle response based on the tone identified, [0288] regarding the vehicle response being determined based on the user's data graph & [0141] regarding a user data graph being formed based on user setting, behavior, and historical actions).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla in view of Byun and further in view of Che (CN 205417607).
Regarding claim 2, Penilla in view of Byun teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
communicate with a portable device or a wearable device associated with the occupant, and
estimate the influence levels based on information acquired from the portable device or the wearable device.
Che teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
communicate with a portable device or a wearable device associated with the occupant (Che, [0047-0048] regarding the detection module being connected to the driver's wearable device and determining their mood using the physiological parameters detected from the wearable device).
Penilla and Che are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate using a wearable device to determine a user’s emotion, as disclosed by Che, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving accuracy of emotion determination.
Penilla, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
estimate the influence levels based on information acquired from the portable device or the wearable device (Byun, [0098] regarding determining an audio emotion confidence score & [0104] regarding determining an image emotion confidence score).
Penilla and Byun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate determining emotion using confidence scores, as disclosed by Byun, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining emotion more accurately.
Regarding claim 4, Penilla in view of Byun and Che teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 2. Penilla, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
collect outside-vehicle information (Penilla, Fig. 1 & [0129] regarding using a user's portable electronics (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop) to capture a user's voice & Fig. 1 regarding the person being outside of the vehicle.), and
estimate the influence levels based on the outside-vehicle information (Byun, [0098] regarding determining an audio emotion confidence score & [0104] regarding determining an image emotion confidence score).
Penilla and Byun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate determining emotion using confidence scores, as disclosed by Byun, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining emotion more accurately.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla in view of Byun and Che, and further in view of Grace (US 2021/0030308).
Regarding claim 3, Penilla in view of Byun and Che teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 2, but does not teach wherein
the information comprises information including content of text and images posted on social media by the occupant, and
the at least one processor is further programmed to estimate the influence levels based on the information including the content of the text and the images posted on the social media by the occupant.
Grace teaches wherein
the information comprises information including content of text and images posted on social media by the occupant (Grace, [0169] regarding the computing system analyzing social media posts to determine the users emotion).
Penilla and Grace are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of emotion determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate using social media posts to determine a user’s emotion, as disclosed by Grace, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving accuracy of emotion determination.
Penilla, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to estimate the influence levels based on the information including the content of the text and the images posted on the social media by the occupant (Byun, [0098] regarding determining an audio emotion confidence score & [0104] regarding determining an image emotion confidence score).
Penilla and Byun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate determining emotion using confidence scores, as disclosed by Byun, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining emotion more accurately.
Regarding claim 5, Penilla in view of Byun, Che, and Grace teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 3. Penilla, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
collect outside-vehicle information (Penilla, Fig. 1 & [0129] regarding using a user's portable electronics (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop) to capture a user's voice & Fig. 1 regarding the person being outside of the vehicle.), and
estimate the influence levels based on the outside-vehicle information (Byun, [0098] regarding determining an audio emotion confidence score & [0104] regarding determining an image emotion confidence score).
Penilla and Byun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user emotion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla, as modified, to incorporate determining emotion using confidence scores, as disclosed by Byun, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining emotion more accurately.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665