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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on March 23rd 2026 has been entered. Claims 10 – 12 and 14 – 18 have been amended and claims 1 - 9 have been cancelled. Claims 10 - 18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §102
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 7 -11, filed March 23rd 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 10 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully
considered and they are persuasive.
The crux of the Applicant’s arguments is that the amendments to the independent claims are not taught by the art of record.
Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws the statutory rejection
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Ikeno et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20180068659) hereinafter Ikeno and Victor et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20180068659) hereinafter Victor
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 10 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashida et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0000392) hereinafter Nashida in view of Ikeno et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20180068659) hereinafter Ikeno and in further view of Victor et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2015/0258996) hereinafter Victor
Regarding claim 10 Nashida teaches an information processing system (Fig. 1, vehicle notification apparatus [0006], [0018], [0072]) such as “information processing system” comprising: an agent (Fig. 8, pictogram [0013], [0055]) configured to perform at least one agent function, (display the detected emotive index of a driver [0055]) wherein the agent is a three-dimensional object and/or a two-dimensional image (The pictograms representing emotion indexes are prepared to include three types of
pictograms shown in FIG. 8. In FIG. 8, the pictogram (a) indicates an emotion of comfort (for example, with confidence); the pictogram (b) indicates an emotion of a normality
(for example, neither comfort nor discomfort); the pictogram ( c) indicates an emotion of discomfort (for example, anxiety or concern). [0055]) displayed on a display, (pictorial characters (i.e. pictograms) on the inquiry screen [0055]) and wherein the at least one agent function (display the detected emotive index of a driver [0055]) is at least one of a voice function (notification of voice information given to a driver [0026]) and a display function; (display the detected emotion index in pictorial characters (i.e., pictograms) on the inquiry screen [0055]) and an information processing device (various in-vehicle devices in the driver's vehicle [0024]) that generates dialogue sentence data for a user, (Fig. 7 it is preferable that the driver be inquired of "Do you want to re-search the route?" when the vehicle deviates from the route? [0055]) the information processing system(Fig. 1, vehicle notification apparatus [0006], [0018], [0072]) such as “information processing system” outputting the generated dialogue sentence data (Fig. 7 it is preferable that the driver be inquired of "Do you want to re-search the route?" when the vehicle deviates from the route? [0055]) to the user (the driver [0052]) using the at least one agent function, (notification of voice information given to a driver [0026]) wherein the information processing device (various in-vehicle devices in the driver's vehicle [0024]) SEE functionality of HMI Controller [0021] is configured to: estimate a recognition load (estimating feeling or the like to estimate the driver's feeling or emotion [0061]) such as “recognition load” SEE ALSO anxiety [0041], [0055], [0057], [0058], [0060] when the user recognizes (recognized by the driver [0024]) the dialogue sentence data; (Fig. 7 it is preferable that the driver be inquired of "Do you want to re-search the route?" when the vehicle deviates from the route? [0055]) wherein when the recognition load (feeling or the like to estimate the driver's feeling or emotion [0061]) such as “recognition load” SEE ALSO anxiety [0041], [0055], [0057], [0058], [0060] of the user (the driver [0024]) is relatively high, (pictogram depicting a high index ( c) indicating an emotion of discomfort for example anxiety or concern [0055]) such as “high” SEE FIG 6 emotive index with values -30 to 30 with the negative connotation depicting high levels of “uncomfortable” and storing (where the HMI controller 9 stores data indicating that the driver's answer [0051]) the stored(where the HMI controller 9 stores data indicating that the driver's answer [0051])
Nashida does not fully disclose an input processing device configured to: perform voice recognition processing on voice information from the user; classify the voice information into positive sentences having a positive meaning to the user and negative sentences having a negative meaning to the user based on words included in the voice information; the classified positive and negative sentences; and an information processing device that generates dialogue sentence data for a user from classified positive and negative sentences; the information processing device increases a proportion of the positive sentences among the positive sentences and the negative sentences used in the dialogue sentence data as compared to when the recognition load of the user is relatively low, wherein the increase in the proportion of the positive sentences corresponds to an increase in a number of outputs of positive sentences to a total number of outputs of the dialogue sentence data to the user.
Ikeno teaches an input processing device (ABS., voice recognition device) (voice recognition device [0074]) configured to: perform voice recognition processing on voice information from the user; (a voice recognition unit that recognizes the acquired voice to acquire a voice recognition result [0054]) classify the voice information (The correction unit 12 performs (1) processing to classify a speech content given by a user into a category based on a text acquired from the voice recognition server 20 and [0047]) into positive sentences having a positive meaning to the user and negative sentences having a negative meaning to the user (it is assumed that the speech content is classified into the four types of categories … [0064] … but categories other than these categories may be used [0097]) such as “into positive sentences having a positive meaning to the user and negative sentences having a negative meaning to the user” based on words included in the voice information; (based on a text acquired from the voice recognition server 20 and [0047]) the classified positive and negative sentences; (it is assumed that the speech content is classified into the four types of categories … [0064] … but categories other than these categories may be used [0097]) such as “into positive sentences having a positive meaning to the user and negative sentences having a negative meaning to the user” and an information processing device that generates dialogue sentence data for a user (the response generation unit 16 generates a response based on the text [0068]) from classified positive and negative sentences; (it is assumed that the speech content is classified into the four types of categories … [0064] … but categories other than these categories may be used [0097])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida to incorporate the teachings of Ikeno wherein an input processing device configured to: perform voice recognition processing on voice information from the user; classify the voice information into positive sentences having a positive meaning to the user and negative sentences having a negative meaning to the user based on words included in the voice information; the classified positive and negative sentences; and an information processing device that generates dialogue sentence data for a user from classified positive and negative sentences. By doing so a correction unit that corrects the voice recognition result, based on the category dictionary. Ikeno [0008]
Trent teaches the information processing device(multimodal user interface [0037]) increases a proportion (subsequently receive continuous feedback on the ability to drive comfortably. [0053]))of the positive sentences among the positive sentences (a coaching message may for example encourage the driver to drive more comfortably [0053]) such as “positive sentences” and the negative sentences (alert warnings is that they can be quite frequent (up to several warnings per minute).Frequent warnings may lead to annoyance and the driver turning off the system. [0042]) such as “negative sentences” used in the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048])as compared to when the recognition load of the user is relatively low, (Thus if the driver is driving uncomfortably, e.g. turning aggressively, accelerating or braking harshly, or driving too fast over road bumps [0053]) wherein the increase in the proportion(subsequently receive continuous feedback on the ability to drive comfortably. [0053])) of the positive sentences (a coaching message may for example encourage the driver to drive more comfortably [0053]) such as “positive sentences” corresponds to an increase in a number of outputs of positive sentences (receive continuous feedback on the ability to drive comfortably. [0053])) to a total number of outputs of the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048]) to the user (the driver [0045])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein the information processing device increases a proportion of the positive sentences among the positive sentences and the negative sentences used in the dialogue sentence data as compared to when the recognition load of the user is relatively low, wherein the increase in the proportion of the positive sentences corresponds to an increase in a number of outputs of positive sentences to a total number of outputs of the dialogue sentence data to the user. By doing so a driver that is consistently showing a suboptimal visual distraction behavior will receive specific feedback encouraging him to reduce the length of glances away from the road or reduce the duration of visual time sharing, depending on the metric that needs improvement. Trent [0046]
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 11 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 10,
Nashida as modified further teaches wherein when the recognition load of the user(the driver's feeling or emotion [0061]) such as “recognition load” SEE ALSO anxiety [0041], [0055], [0057], [0058], [0060 ]i is higher (Fig. 12 uncomfortable values below -30 from Q1 to Q2 [0076])than a predetermined value, (Fig. 6 threshold value (TH) of determining comfort, and the threshold value (TH) of determining discomfort [0054]) threshold value for determining the driver’s intention
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose the information processing device does not use the negative sentences in the dialogue sentence data.
Trent teaches the information processing device (multimodal user interface [0037])does not use the negative sentences (alert warnings is that they can be quite frequent (up to several warnings per minute). Frequent warnings may lead to annoyance and the driver turning off the system. [0042]) such as “negative sentences” in the dialogue sentence data. (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein the information processing device does not use the negative sentences in the dialogue sentence data. By doing so a code for selecting the coaching messages to be provided to the driver using a multimodal
user interface of the coaching arrangement based on a correlation of the determined coaching level and the selected driving state. Trent [0024]
Regarding claim 12 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 10,
Nashida as modified further teaches wherein the information processing device (various in-vehicle devices in the driver's vehicle [0024]) SEE functionality of HMI Controller [0021] with respect to the agent, (Fig. 8, pictogram [0013], [0055])
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose is further configured to detect a user's proficiency level with respect to the agent, and change the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data and a proportion of the negative sentences used in the dialogue sentence data, depending on whether the user's proficiency level is relatively low or relatively high.
Trent teaches detect a user's proficiency level (e.g. the driving level (e.g. relating to a self-observed skill level) [0038]) and change the proportion (would require a longer period of coaching [0043])of the positive sentences (a coaching message may for example encourage the driver to drive more comfortably [0053]) such as “positive sentences” used in the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data” and a proportion (may require coaching that is Jess focused on background explanations or alternative ways of interaction [0043]) of the negative sentences(alert warnings is that they can be quite frequent (up to several warnings per minute). Frequent warnings may lead to annoyance and the driver turning off the system. [0042]) such as “negative sentences” used in the dialogue sentence data, (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data” depending on whether the user's proficiency level (e.g. the driving level (e.g. relating to a self-observed skill level) [0038]) is relatively low (the driver which has the predetermined profile of a novice driver would require a longer period of coaching with more background explanations and more feedback regarding choice of action [0043]) or relatively high (the driver which has the predetermined higher risk assessment but a profile of a more experienced driver may require coaching that is Jess focused on background explanations or alternative ways of interaction [0043])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein is further configured to detect a user's proficiency level with respect to the agent, and change the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data and a proportion of the negative sentences used in the dialogue sentence data, depending on whether the user's proficiency level is relatively low or relatively high. By doing so a driver that is consistently showing a suboptimal visual distraction behavior will receive specific feedback encouraging him to reduce the length of glances away from the road or reduce the duration of visual time sharing, depending on the metric that needs improvement. Trent [0046]
Regarding claim 13 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 12,
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose wherein the user's proficiency level is estimated from at least one of an amount of time the user uses the agent, a frequency of use and operating state of the agent, and a frequency and content of input data from the user.
Trent teaches wherein the user's proficiency level (e.g. the driving level (e.g. relating to a self-observed skill level) [0038]) is estimated from at least one of an amount of time the user uses the agent, a frequency of use and operating state of the agent, and a frequency and content of input data from the user (driver’s ability [0046])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein the user's proficiency level is estimated from at least one of an amount of time the user uses the agent, a frequency of use and operating state of the agent, and a frequency and content of input data from the user. By doing so In this particular case, a driver that is consistently showing a suboptimal visual distraction behavior will receive specific feedback encouraging him to reduce the length of glances away from the road or reduce the duration of visual time sharing, depending on the metric that needs improvement. Trent [0046]
Regarding claim 14 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 12,
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose wherein when the user's proficiency level is relatively low, the information processing device increases the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data as compared to when the user's proficiency level is relatively high.
Trent teaches wherein when the user's proficiency level(e.g. the driving level (e.g. relating to a self-observed skill level) [0038]) is relatively low, the information processing device(multimodal user interface [0037]) increases the proportion (As previously mentioned, in all cases above the specific formulation of the coaching message, feedback and the targets may be dependent on the determined operational state of the driver. [0055]) of the positive sentences ( a novice driver may receive much more detailed instructions, e.g. "please keep 3 sec to lead vehicle [0055]) used in the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data” as compared to when the user's proficiency level is relatively high. (a driver with a predetermined profile that corresponds to a more skilled driver may receive a message that is more supportive in nature, e.g. "please increase headway distance", [0055])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein when the user's proficiency level is relatively low, the information processing device increases the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data as compared to when the user's proficiency level is relatively high. By doing so the coaching may make use of context-specific feedback based on metrics for that specific context and the divergence from that metric. Trent [0055]
Regarding claim 15 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 12,
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose wherein when the user's proficiency level is lower than a predetermined value, the information processing device does not use the negative sentences in the dialogue sentence data.
Trent teaches wherein when the user's proficiency level is lower than a predetermined value, (a predetermined profile corresponding to a novice driver [0055])the information processing device (multimodal user interface [0037]) does not use the negative sentences (alert warnings is that they can be quite frequent (up to several warnings per minute). Frequent warnings may lead to annoyance and the driver turning off the system. [0042]) such as “negative sentences” in the dialogue sentence data. (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein when the user's proficiency level is lower than a predetermined value, the information processing device does not use the negative sentences in the dialogue sentence data. By doing so the coaching level may be depending on the driver's ability to react in the optimal way to the situation and simultaneously the driver's opportunity to act. [0048])
Regarding claim 16 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 10,
Nashida as modified does not fully disclose wherein the information processing device is further configured to determine whether or not another person other than the user is present within a predetermined range, wherein when the information processing device determines that the other person is present within the predetermined range, the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data increases as compared to when the information processing device determines that the other person is not present within the predetermined range.
Trent teaches wherein the information processing device (multimodal user interface [0037])is further configured to determine (The car 100 is provided with
external sensors 104 arranged to detect [0034])whether or not another person (surrounding vehicles, [0034]) other than the user (the driver [0045])is present within a predetermined range, ( external sensor(s) for retrieving information of the vehicle operation as well as the surrounding environment of the vehicle [0034]) wherein when the information processing device (multimodal user interface [0037])determines that the other person is present within the predetermined range, (surrounding vehicles, [0034])the proportion of (As previously mentioned, in all cases above the specific formulation of the coaching message, feedback and the targets may be dependent on the determined operational state of the driver. [0055]the positive sentences ( a novice driver may receive much more detailed instructions, e.g. "please keep 3 sec to lead vehicle [0055])used in the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data” increases ( receive much more detailed instructions, [0055])as compared to when the information processing device (multimodal user interface [0037])determines that the other person (surrounding vehicles, [0034])is not present within the predetermined range. (coaching level may be depending on the driver's ability to react in the optimal way to the situation and simultaneously
the driver's opportunity to act. [0048])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein the information processing device is further configured to determine whether or not another person other than the user is present within a predetermined range, wherein when the information processing device determines that the other person is present within the predetermined range, the proportion of the positive sentences used in the dialogue sentence data increases as compared to when the information processing device determines that the other person is not present within the predetermined range. By doing so the coaching level may be depending on the driver's ability to react in the optimal way to the situation and simultaneously the driver's opportunity to act. [0048])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashida et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2020/0000392) hereinafter Nashida in view of Ikeno et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20180068659) hereinafter Ikeno in view of Victor et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2015/0258996) hereinafter Victor and in further view of Campos (United States Patent Publication Number 20220253021) hereinafter Campos
Regarding claim 17 Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent teaches the information processing system according to claim 16,
Nashida as modified does wherein the information processing device is configured to specify and store attribute information of the other person, and when the other person is present within the predetermined range and the attribute information of the other person is not stored or when the stored attribute information of the other person is lower than a predetermined value, the negative sentences are not used in the dialogue sentence data.
Trent teaches the negative sentences are not used (alert warnings is that they can be quite frequent (up to several warnings per minute).Frequent warnings may lead to annoyance and the driver turning off the system. [0042]) such as “negative sentences” in the dialogue sentence data (coaching messages [0048]) such as “dialogue sentence data”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno to incorporate the teachings of Trent wherein the negative sentences are not used in the dialogue sentence data. By doing so the coaching level may be depending on the driver's ability to react in the optimal way to the situation and simultaneously the driver's opportunity to act. [0048])
Campos teaches wherein the information processing device is configured to specify and store (diver monitoring system assess driver’s behaviors [0042]) such as “specify and store” attribute information (the driver's aptitude in maintaining a safe location, such as not driving next to cars in adjacent lanes, but rather maintaining an offset in position … characteristic of the driver's driving behavior (such as ability, safety, and the like) based on the relative distances and speeds of the driver's car 246 and nearby cars 248 when changing lanes [0045]) of the other person, (other drivers [0084]) and when the other person (other drivers [0084]) is present within the predetermined range ( nearby cars 248[0045]) and the attribute information (the driver's aptitude in maintaining a safe location, such as not driving next to cars in adjacent lanes, but rather maintaining an offset in position … characteristic of the driver's driving behavior (such as ability, safety, and the like) based on the relative distances and speeds of the driver's car 246 and nearby cars 248 when changing lanes [0045]) of the other person (other drivers [0084]) is not stored (If the Driver does not, then the cause for the persistent tailgating may be assigned to the Driver [0085]) or when the stored attribute information (the driver's aptitude in maintaining a safe location, such as not driving next to cars in adjacent lanes, but rather maintaining an offset in position … characteristic of the driver's driving behavior (such as ability, safety, and the like) based on the relative distances and speeds of the driver's car 246 and nearby cars 248 when changing lanes [0045])of the other person(other drivers [0084]) is lower than a predetermined value (lower than the risk level [0050])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nashida in view of Ikeno and Trent to incorporate the teachings of Campos wherein the information processing device is configured to specify and store attribute information of the other person, and when the other person is present within the predetermined range and the attribute information of the other person is not stored or when the stored attribute information of the other person is lower than a predetermined value. By doing so an occurrence of an atypical traffic event at or near a monitored vehicle can be determined. Campos [0009]
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this
final action.
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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-
8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have
questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights