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
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 being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “the unit” in line 8 is indefinite. There are two different “a unit” in the claim. It is not clear which one is being referred by the phrase. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since claims 2-9 are dependent claims, these claims are also rejected.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “the user” in line 3 is indefinite. There are two different “a user” in the claim 1. It is not clear which one is being referred by the phrase.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0005778).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-7, Kim teaches a information processing device comprising a controller configured to perform processing (fig. 1, 2; paragraph 81: "dialogue system 100 may include an input processor ...") comprising:
receiving a state of notification performed by a predetermined notification device configured to notify, based on a detection result of a state of a unit in a predetermined device, a state of the unit (paragraph 220: "vehicle state information may include information, which
indicates the vehicle state and is acquired by a sensor provided in the vehicle 200");
determining, in response to the received state of notification, whether or not the state of a unit is notified by the predetermined notification device (paragraph 673: "context understanding portion a23 determines whether it is required for the context to inform a user of a notification
related to the notification event, based on the notification event table 145c");
starting, based on determination result that the state of the unit is notified, an operation mode for recognizing voice data uttered by a user and replying to an utterance of the user; acquiring voice data uttered by a user and generating, according to the received state of notification, reply data with respect to the acquired voice data (fig.3-5; paragraphs 111-115: the system initiates a speech dialogue based on vehicle state, e.g., low fuel notification); and
outputting the generated reply data (paragraph 92: "The dialogue response may be output in text, image or audio type").
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the controller performs processing including:
identifying, based on in response to the received state of notification, a notification target of the predetermined notification device and generating, as the reply data, description data about meaning of notification, the description data being stored in advance in association with the identified notification target (paragraph 675; "The notification event information may include notification timing and guide information of notification event, and further include a notification event name.”, paragraph 677; “The context understanding portion a23 may acquire a notification event based on the information, which is monitored by the context information collection manager a22, and the information stored in the notification event table.”, paragraph 678; “For example, when the information, which is monitored by the context information collection manager a22, is that one hour passes after a start time of driving, the context understanding portion a23 may check information stored in the notification event table and acquire a notification event indicating that all window open, from the notification event table.”, paragraph 701; “The storage 140a stores a variety of information for the dialogue processing and the service provision, and further stores the acquired notification event information related to domains, actions, speech acts and entity names used for the natural language understanding and a context understanding table used for understanding the context from the input information".”)
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the controller performs processing including generating the reply data when the controller acquires voice data uttered by the user within a notification timing [i.e., predetermined period] after notification of a state of the unit performed by the predetermined notification device starts, and does not performs processing of generating the reply data when the controller does not acquires the voice data within the predetermined period (fig.3-5; paragraphs 675, 676) (Note; the scenarios illustrated in fig.3-5 imply considering a predetermined time for voice input and paragraph 676 further discloses when the current time is notification timing of the notification event, the context understanding portion a23 acquires guide information on the notification event information.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a storage unit configured to store notification target data indicating a notification target of the predetermined notification device, notification form data indicating a form of notification through the notification target, and description data indicating meaning of notification through the notification target in association with one another (paragraphs 92, 675) (Note; paragraphs 92, 675, further discloses storing different forms of notifications.).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the controller performs processing including: identifying, based on the acquired voice data and the notification form data, the notification target intended by the voice data; and outputting, as the reply data, the description data stored in association with the identified notification target (paragraphs 84 to 86, 92, 706 and 707) (Note; paragraphs 84 to 86, 92, 706 and 707, discloses identifying notification targets based on voice input and context, and outputting corresponding stored description data.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle, and the unit includes at least one of a fuel tank, headlights, a radiator, a braking device, a vehicle dynamics control device, and tires (fig.2, 3 and 20B) (Note; fig.2, 3 and 20B, disclose use of the device in a vehicle, and context information related to fuel level and tire pressure.).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Kim teaches information processing method for causing a controller to perform processing (fig. 1, 2; paragraph 81: "dialogue system 100 may include an input processor ...").
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0005778) in view of Duvoisin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0022106).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the controller performs processing including:
determining, in response to the received state of notification, whether or not a state of the unit is notified by the predetermined notification device, when determining that a state of the unit is notified, generating the reply data by a first voice reply program, the first voice reply program generating reply data matching the state of notification (paragraphs 675, 677, 678, 701).
However, Kim does not specifically teach when not determining that a state of the unit is notified, generating the reply data by a second voice reply program, the second voice reply program being different from the first voice reply program. Duvoisin teaches when not determining that a state of the unit is notified, generating the indication [i.e., reply data] by a second voice reply program, the second voice reply program being different from the first voice reply program (paragraph 60; “When the GPR or CWMD are not operating properly, the BIT may produce an indicator to the operator of the system 100 such that the operator stops using the system 100 and/or repairs the system 100”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to incorporate the feature of when not determining that a state of the unit is notified, generating the reply data by a second voice reply program, the second voice reply program being different from the first voice reply program in Kim’s invention as taught by Duvoisin. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide proper information such that an appropriate assistance can be received.
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the second voice reply program starts voice recognition processing by a specific phrase and the first voice reply program does not require the specific phrase to start voice recognition processing. Duvoisin teaches wherein the second voice reply program starts voice recognition processing by a specific phrase and the first voice reply program does not require the specific phrase to start voice recognition processing (paragraph 60; “The MD response sound may be a set of variable pitch and amplitude audio tones, while the GPR sounds may be discrete, wideband beeps. Other audio responses may be either distinct electronic tones or commands that are generated to inform the operator of system status through audible indicators alone. For example, a Battery Low Warning command may be generated within five minutes of battery life remaining. All (built-in test) BIT Failure debug codes may be in spoken English..”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to incorporate the feature of wherein the second voice reply program starts voice recognition processing by a specific phrase and the first voice reply program does not require the specific phrase to start voice recognition processing in Kim’s invention as taught by Duvoisin. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a second notification in appropriate format.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the form of notification is a text, image or audio type of notification in the predetermined notification device (paragraph 92; “The dialogue response may be output in text, image or audio type.”).
However, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the form of notification is a position, a color, or a shape of notification. Duvoisin teaches wherein the form of notification is a position, a color, or a shape of notification (paragraphs 95-96; “the shape of the signal is employed in addition to or instead of the average amplitude of the frequencies”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to incorporate the feature of wherein the form of notification is a position, a color, or a shape of notification in Kim’s invention as taught by Duvoisin. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a notification in a particular format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN S TSANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
January 28, 2026