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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wasson et al (20080103781).
As per claim 1, Wasson et al (20080103781) teaches a content evaluation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (as processor/memory performing the disclosed steps – para 0006, 0022):
acquire a voice content to be output to a passenger of a vehicle; output the voice content (as, to an occupant of a vehicle, that has telematics/speech processing capabilities – para 0029; wherein the telematics unit replies to the user with an appropriate response – para 0059);
perform a voice recognition process for recognizing a keyword in the voice content, which is included in utterance of the passenger after the voice content is output (as, part of the dialog process, listening to the user’s response, to the telematics results presented to the user – see para 0061 – 0066; the keyword, in this example, is “dial”);
and evaluate effectiveness of the voice content output to the passenger based on a result of the voice recognition process (as, evaluating by the user’s response, a degree of experience by the user – para 0059; and based on the ‘experience level determination’ (mapped to “effectiveness”), altering the level of prompting, to be more effective to the user -- as altering extra words/pause/and intonation – para 0067).
As per claim 2, Wasson et al (20080103781) teaches the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a score according to a number of times that the keyword is recognized by the voice recognition process, as an index for evaluating the effectiveness of the voice content (as, user-experience-determination, as explained above in claim 1, counting the number of times a command is given by the user, to determine experience level – para 0095; with a higher number of, the use of a command, the higher level of experience assigned to that user – remainder of para 0095).
As per claim 3, Wasson et al (20080103781) teaches the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs the voice recognition process in a period from immediately after the voice content is output until a predetermined time elapses (as, a voice recognition window, for a predetermined time, before there is a predetermined timeout – para 0053).
As per claim 4, Wasson et al (20080103781) teaches the content evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the processor stops the voice recognition process when a predetermined time has elapsed from the timing at which the score is last acquired after the voice content is output (as altering the timing of the user response based on experience level – para 0052 – so that there is a more comfortable interaction; this plays into the amount, of, the timeout window for the user, as shown in para 0053; see the examples in para 0061 – 0066, wherein the responses/response times are staggered for a less experienced user, and explanations in para 0067-0069).
Claim 6 is a method claims whose steps are performed by the content evaluation device disclosed in claims 1-4 above and as such, claim 6 is similar in scope and content to claims 1-4 above; therefore, claim 6 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-4 above.
Claim 7 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim, executing steps by a computer, that are performed by the device claims 1-4 above; as such, claim 7 is similar in scope and content to claims 1-4 above; therefore, claim 7 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-4 above.
As per claim 9, Wasson et al (20080103781) teaches the content evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the processor performs the voice recognition process in a period from immediately after the voice content is output until a predetermined time elapses (as, performing the voice recognition process starting from feedback from the user – para 0064; listening for the user’s response, and waiting, according to the time period / timeout, as disclosed in para 0053).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Furthermore, the following references were found to be pertinent to applicants claim features/disclosure:
Talwar (20190348065) teaches timed-out listening to speech recognition results and using the timing to determine ‘closeness’ or relevance (see para 0028).
Arditi (20190197430) teaches voice recognition command in a passenger vehicle and using the results as a measure of alignment towards a desired result (see para 0037, 0059).
Zhao et al (20170236511) teaches subword recognition alignment for the best result toward recognizing dialog in a vehicle – see para 0032.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 04/14/2026
Prosecution Insights