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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuhata (US 2013/0116919).
Regarding claim 1:
Furuhata teaches A voice output device (navigation apparatus 101) comprising:
a memory (105) configured to store instructions; and
a processor (CPU 104) configured to execute the instructions to:
set a plurality of utterance points and a plurality of utterance contents for the plurality of utterance points, based on a route a destination of a vehicle (route guidance and hazard location warnings, see at least ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶0056-0057, ¶0064);
determine whether or not a first voice output corresponding to a first utterance content at a first utterance point among the plurality of utterance points and a second voice output corresponding to a second utterance content at a second utterance point among the plurality of utterance points overlap at least partly, based on a speed of the vehicle traveling along the route (see at least ¶0065, ¶0045, ¶0109); and
perform processing for preventing overlap of the first voice output and the second voice output, based on a priority set in advance, when it is determined that the first voice output and the second voice output overlap (see at least Fig. 9, S905, ¶0111).
Regarding claim 2:
Furuhata further teaches wherein, when the speed of the vehicle traveling along the route exceeds a speed value obtained by a predetermined calculation method, the processor determines that the first voice output corresponding to the first utterance content at the first utterance point among the plurality of utterance points and the second voice output corresponding to the second utterance content at the second utterance point among the plurality of utterance points overlap at least partly (see at least ¶0087-0088).
Regarding claim 6:
Furuhata further teaches wherein the priority is set such that, among the first utterance point and the second utterance point, one voice output corresponding to the utterance content of one guidance point closer to the guidance point ahead of the vehicle on the route is preferentially performed (see at least Fig. 7, priority calculation formula).
Regarding claim 7:
Furuhata further teaches wherein the processor performs, as the processing for preventing the overlap based on the priority, processing for stopping another voice output corresponding to the utterance content of another utterance point farther from the guide point at a timing when the one voice output is started, among the first utterance point and the second utterance point (see at least ¶0111).
Regarding claim 8:
Furuhata further teaches wherein the priority is set so that the voice output of information important for moving the vehicle along the route is preferentially performed (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding clam 10:
Furuhata teaches A voice output method comprising:
setting a plurality of utterance points and a plurality of utterance contents for the plurality of utterance points, based on a route to a destination of a vehicle (route guidance and hazard location warnings, see at least ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶0056-0057, ¶0064);
determining whether or not a first voice output corresponding to a first utterance content at a first utterance point among the plurality of utterance points and a second voice output corresponding to a second utterance content at a second utterance point among the plurality of utterance points overlap at least partly, based on a speed of the vehicle traveling along the route (see at least ¶0065, ¶0045, ¶0109); and
performing processing for preventing overlap of the first voice output and the second voice output, based on a priority set in advance, when it is determined that the first voice output and the second voice output overlap (see at least Fig. 9, S905, ¶0111).
Regarding clam 11:
Furuhata teaches a non-transitory computer-readable program executed by a voice output device comprising a computer, the program causing the computer to:
set a plurality of utterance points and a plurality of utterance contents for the plurality of utterance points, based on a route to a destination of a vehicle (route guidance and hazard location warnings, see at least ¶0004, ¶0034, ¶0056-0057, ¶0064);
determine whether or not a first voice output corresponding to a first utterance content at a first utterance point among the plurality of utterance points and a second voice output corresponding to a second utterance content at a second utterance point among the plurality of utterance points overlap at least partly, based on a speed of the vehicle traveling along the route (see at least ¶0065, ¶0045, ¶0109); and
perform processing for preventing overlap of the first voice output and the second voice output, based on a priority set in advance, when it is determined that the first voice output and the second voice output overlap (see at least Fig. 9, S905, ¶0111).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata.
Regarding claim 3:
Furuhata teaches the limitations as in claim 2 above.
Furuhata further teaches determining the speed value, but does not teach the specifics of determining the speed value.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the navigation system and method as taught by Furuhata with the well-known technique of determining a speed by dividing a relevant distance by the appropriate time since this is a well-understood mathematical relation, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a straightforward means for determining the relationship between the amount of time available to produce the utterances and the speed of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otani et al. (US 2010/0268453).
Regarding claim 5:
Furuhata teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Furuhata does not explicitly teach setting utterance points based on a traveling speed.
Otani teaches a system and method of providing audio navigation guidance including wherein a plurality of utterance points are set as positions indicating timings capable of performing the voice outputs corresponding to the plurality of utterance contents without overlap in the vehicle that is assumed to travel at a speed equal to or lower than a predetermined speed (see at least Fig. 5, 9-10, ¶0010-0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the navigation voice output system and method as taught by Furuhata with the technique of determining an utterance output timing based on the speed of the vehicle as taught by Otani in order to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata as applied to claim 1 above in view of Saito et al. (US 2007/0094029).
Regarding claims 4 and 9:
Furuhata teaches the limitations as in claims 1 and 8 above.
Furuhata does not explicitly teach shortening utterances.
Saito teaches a system and method of speech synthesis, including determining when a plurality of utterances would overlap and shortening at least one of the first utterance content and the second utterance content (see at least abstract, ¶0040-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the navigation voice output system and method as taught by Furuhata with the technique of shortening utterances to prevent overlap as taught by Saito in order to allow all necessary information to be presented in sufficient time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619