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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2025, 11/12/2024, and 07/24/2024 have been being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“acquisition unit configured to acquire”; and
“determination unit configured to determine”.
Claim limitations of claim 2 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“determination unit determines that”.
Claim limitations of claim 3 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“determination unit determines that”.
Claim limitations of claim 4 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“determination unit determines that”.
Claim limitations of claim 5 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“determination unit determines that”.
Claim limitations of claim 8 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“inquiry unit configured to inquire”;
“determination unit determines whether”; and
“inquiry unit determines whether”.
Claim limitations of claim 10 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“estimation unit configured to estimate”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claims 1-5, 8, and 10, claim limitations “acquisition unit configured to acquire”; and “determination unit configured to determine” (in claim 1); “determination unit determines that” (in claims 2, 3, 4, and 5); “inquiry unit configured to inquire”, “determination unit determines whether”, and “inquiry unit determines whether” (in claim 8); and “estimation unit configured to estimate” (in claim 10) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure for performing “acquisition unit configured to acquire”, “determination unit configured to determine”, “determination unit determines that”, “inquiry unit configured to inquire”, “determination unit determines whether”, “inquiry unit determines whether”, and “estimation unit configured to estimate”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one ordinary skill in the art would understand structures to perform the claimed function.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 are further rejected by the virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As describe above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions (i.e. acquisition unit configured to acquire”, “determination unit configured to determine”, “determination unit determines that”, “inquiry unit configured to inquire”, “determination unit determines whether”, “inquiry unit determines whether”, and “estimation unit configured to estimate”. The specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10 are further rejected by the virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagar et al. (US 20220269349 A1) hereinafter Nagar.
Regarding claim 1, Nagar discloses a user state determination device comprising: an acquisition unit (FIG. 5: MEMORY 1104) configured to acquire moving history information of a user; and a determination unit (FIG. 5: PROCESSOR 501) configured to determine that one location serving as a start point of a predetermined moving pattern is likely to be a specific location at which the user has fallen into a predetermined state when the moving history information indicates the moving pattern, ([0055] “Referring now to FIG. 3, shown is an example object identification table 300, […] the first observation instance indicates that the object location assistant (e.g., object location assistant 102 of FIG. 1) has detected gestures 302 associated with head motions and eye movement (equivalent to “moving pattern”) directed downward toward the user's couch (equivalent to “start point”). Correlating the detected gestures 302 and the contextual data type 304 indicating user activity history for typically watching television at 8 pm (which assumes is the current time based on metadata), the object location assistant determines that the user is likely searching for the television's remote control. Once identified, the object location assistant may direct the user (e.g., verbally, visually, textually) to where a predicted location (equivalent to “a specific location”) of the identified object 306 would most likely be found based on historic movement data (equivalent to “moving history information”) of the remote control collected from the observation device's data stream”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al. (US 20220269349 A1) hereinafter Nagar, in view of Daoura et al. (US 12412465 B1), hereinafter Daoura.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Nagar does not disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the one location is the specific location at which the user has fallen into the predetermined state when the user has left the one location, then has returned to the one location, and then has left the one location within a predetermined time on the basis of the moving history.
In the same field of endeavor, Daoura discloses wherein the determination unit determines that the one location is the specific location at which the user has fallen into the predetermined state when the user has left the one location, then has returned to the one location, and then has left the one location within a predetermined time on the basis of the moving history, ((column 116, line 63 to column 117, line 29); (column 13, line 25 – 65); and (column 22, line 47 – 51) describe an invention in which an item OR asset such as a key or dog with a signaling tag (RFID) is left behind/lost, such that, (column 65, line 34 – 40) “A fading RSSI 1807 that is more than a fluctuation in signal strength, as indicates decreasing proximity and increasing separation, (equivalent to “has left the one location…”) could be followed by a loss of signal, and for a tracked asset, a lost radio tether signal may necessitate an immediate CALL HOME by radiotag 10 to get a new Any location fix and to generate a LOST ALERT notification to any interested party. (column 91, line 36 - 55) interactive response can lead to further assistance, or to a two-way conversation between an owner/administrator and for example a community member who found the lost object or pet and pressed the button or somehow generated a CALL HOME 1 (FIG. 1). Typically, a message might be, in the case of a child with wrist radiotag, dog or cat wearing a radio collar, or a lost asset that carries an attached radiotag, “Your child/asset/pet has been found . . . and here is the location where the pet is now [ . . . see displayed map] (equivalent to “basis of the moving history”) [….] Extended voice interactions may be offered as part of the Cellular Remote Locator Services Toolkit (FIG. 9). […] The back and forth of a voice (equivalent to “returned to the one location, and then has left the one location”) channel allows for direct communication and speeds (equivalent to “predetermined time”) recovery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) to include the displayed map, disclosed by Daoura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to locate the lost asset, Daoura (column 13, line 25 – 65); and (column 22, line 47 – 51); (column 65, line 34 – 40); (column 91, line 36 - 55)).
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al. (US 20220269349 A1) hereinafter Nagar, in view of Daoura et al. (US 12412465 B1), hereinafter Daoura, further in view of LALKA; Vipul Kishore (US 20220156772 A1), hereinafter LALKA.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Nagar as modified by Daoura does not disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state when a time taken for the user to leave the one location and to return to the one location is less than a predetermined time.
In the same field of endeavor, LALKA discloses wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state when a time taken for the user to leave the one location and to return to the one location is less than a predetermined time, ([0014] “the activity is detected (equivalent to “predetermined state”) further based on an arrival at the monitored location prior to the departure, the departure and the return occurring within less than a threshold time, and a further departure from the monitored location. The activity may be detected further based on identification, from the geolocation data, of a second departure and a second return occurring between the arrival and the further departure”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) as modified by Daoura to include the departure and the return times, disclosed by LALKA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the activity (equivalent to “predetermined state”) based upon the analysis of the departure and the return times, LALKA ([0014]).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 2 above, Nagar as modified by Daoura does not disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state additionally on the basis of an external factor at the one location.
In the same field of endeavor, LALKA discloses wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state additionally on the basis of an external factor at the one location, ([0062] “Detecting the activity may be partly based on a count of visits to the location or class of locations, the time between visits, and/or the duration of each visit. In the example of a “test drive”, detecting the activity may include detecting that the mobile device leaves the location and returns to the location within a threshold period of time sufficiently short to indicate a test drive. […] Detecting may further include determining that the mobile device travel sufficiently corresponds to a geographical pattern (equivalent to “an external factor”) associated with the monitored location, e.g. where test drives tend to follow one or two common patterns”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) as modified by Daoura to include the geographical pattern, disclosed by LALKA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the activity (equivalent to “predetermined state”) based upon the analysis of the geographical patterns pertinent to the monitored location, LALKA ([0062]).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 2 above, Nagar as modified by Daoura does not disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state additionally on the basis of attributes of the one location.
In the same field of endeavor, LALKA discloses wherein the determination unit determines that the user is in the predetermined state additionally on the basis of attributes of the one location, ([0062] “Detecting the activity may be partly based on a count of visits to the location or class of locations (equivalent to “attributes of the one location) the time between visits, and/or the duration of each visit. In the example of a “test drive”, detecting the activity may include detecting that the mobile device leaves the location and returns to the location within a threshold period of time sufficiently short to indicate a test drive. […] Detecting may further include determining that the mobile device travel sufficiently corresponds to a geographical pattern associated with the monitored location, e.g. where test drives tend to follow one or two common patterns”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) as modified by Daoura to include the class of locations, disclosed by LALKA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the activity (equivalent to “predetermined state”) based upon the classification of the monitored locations, LALKA ([0062]).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 2 above, Nagar as modified by Daoura does not disclose further comprising an inquiry unit configured to inquire of a predetermined destination about whether the user is in the predetermined state when the determination unit determines whether the user is in the predetermined state, wherein the inquiry unit determines whether the user is in the predetermined state on the basis of a response to the inquiry when the response is received.
In the same field of endeavor, LALKA discloses further comprising an inquiry unit configured to inquire of a predetermined destination about whether the user is in the predetermined state when the determination unit determines whether the user is in the predetermined state, wherein the inquiry unit determines whether the user is in the predetermined state on the basis of a response to the inquiry when the response is received, ([0027] “The mobile device 104 may be configured to transmit geolocation data to the server 102 over the network 106. The geolocation data may be sent periodically, in response to detection of a trigger event at the mobile device 104, such as detection of more than a threshold change in location or identification of a geofence boundary event, or in reply to a polling message from the server 102. The mobile device 104 may be configured to transmit the geolocation data to the server 102 based on enrolment of the mobile device 104 as a registered device with the server 102”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) as modified by Daoura to include the trigger event, disclosed by LALKA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the activity (equivalent to “predetermined state”) as a result of the trigger event at the mobile device 104, LALKA ([0027]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al. (US 20220269349 A1) hereinafter Nagar, in view of DAIKI ET AL. (JP 2019219706 A), hereinafter DAIKI.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Nagar does not disclose wherein the predetermined state is a state in which the user needs to perform a non-purposeful visit to the one location.
In the same field of endeavor, DAIK discloses wherein the predetermined state is a state in which the user needs to perform a non-purposeful visit to the one location, ((paragraphs 0049-0053) describe an invention of performing sound output from an AI speaker 50A (if a mobile telephone is set to function as an AI speaker) of a user 80, the sound output saying, for example, "Did you forget the key?" (equivalent to “predetermined state”), if it was determined on the basis of acquired position information (equivalent to the "movement history information") that a key was forgotten, when the user 80 has left the user's home. This operation indicates that the position (user 80’s house, which is equivalent to “the one location”) where an item was left is determined if a movement pattern of having left the user 80’s house while leaving the item at the user 80’s house was exhibited. Further, said movement pattern is performed for the purpose of returning to retrieve a left item, which is different from the purpose of going back home from outside after finishing daily errands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) to include the acquired position information, disclosed by DAIK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a basis to return home to retrieve the forgotten key, DAIK ((paragraphs 0049-0053)).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, Nagar does not disclose wherein the non-purposeful visit to the one location is a visit based on the user's loss or dropping of an article.
In the same field of endeavor, DAIK discloses wherein the non-purposeful visit to the one location is a visit based on the user's loss or dropping of an article, (paragraphs 0049-0053) describe an invention of performing sound output from an AI speaker 50A (if a mobile telephone is set to function as an AI speaker) of a user 80, the sound output saying, for example, "Did you forget the key?" (equivalent to “predetermined state”), if it was determined on the basis of acquired positional information (equivalent to the "movement history information") that a key was forgotten, when the user 80 has left the user's home. This operation indicates that the position (user 80’s house, which is equivalent to “the one location”) where an item was left is determined if a movement pattern of having left the user 80’s house while leaving the item at the user 80’s house was exhibited. Further, said movement pattern is performed for the purpose of returning to retrieve a left item, which is different from the purpose of going back home from outside after finishing daily errands. [0046]” a process at the time of returning home with reference to the belongings list 22 […] (the said “returning home” is different from a usual going back home from outside after finishing daily errands). Therefore, the action of user 80 returning home with reference to the belongings list 22 illustrates (the non-purposeful visit to the one location based on the user's loss or dropping of an article).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055]) to include the acquired position information, disclosed by DAIK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a basis to return home to retrieve the forgotten key, DAIK ((paragraphs 0049-0053)).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al. (US 20220269349 A1) hereinafter Nagar, in view of UENO et al. (US 20220083942 A1) hereinafter UENO.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Nagar does not disclose wherein the moving history information includes position information and time information.
In the same field of endeavor, UENO discloses wherein the moving history information includes position information and time information, ([0029]- [0030] [0078] “In addition, the storage unit 102 stores positional information which is periodically collected from the user terminal 200, as positional information data 102A. FIG. 3 is an example of the positional information data. As illustrated, the positional information data includes information such as a user's identifier (user ID), positional information (latitude and longitude), date, day of week, and time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055] to include the positional information, disclosed by UENO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify the location related data, such as positional information and time, UENO ([0029]- [0030] [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Nagar does not disclose a user state estimation device comprising: an estimation unit configured to estimate that one user is in a predetermined state from the one user's behavior information at a specific location acquired by the user state determination device according to claim 1, using a predetermined state estimation model trained with information of the specific location and one or more users as an explanatory variable and with a predetermined state of each of the one or more users as an objective variable.
In the same field of endeavor, UENO discloses a user state estimation device comprising: an estimation unit configured to estimate that one user is in a predetermined state from the one user's behavior information at a specific location acquired by the user state determination device according to claim 1, using a predetermined state estimation model trained with information of the specific location and one or more users as an explanatory variable and with a predetermined state of each of the one or more users as an objective variable, (paragraphs [0045], [0079] describe using machine learning to generate the action model. Therefore, the railroad line stations B and A and the user information are set as explanatory variables, and a behavior state such as the action of “going home” (go-home action) is set as an objective variable, thus estimating the behavior state of the user from user information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the historic movement data, disclosed by Nagar ([0055] to include the railroad line stations B and A and the user information, disclosed by UENO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the said data as variables in training the machine learning module, which as a result generates the action model, UENO [0045], [0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights