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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on September 27, 2024, and Drawings filed on September 27, 2024.
2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 13 are independent claims.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C.101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “a controller configured to control a specific function in response to an operation that can be performed by both manual input and voice input,” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “the controller being configured to notify an occupant of a vehicle that the operation can be performed by voice input, upon determining that the occupant has performed the operation by manual input, with a higher frequency when the occupant is a driver than when the occupant is not the driver.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to control a specific function in response to an operation that can be performed by both manual input and voice input” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to control a specific function in response to an operation that can be performed by both manual input and voice input” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 2 and 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “ wherein at least when the occupant is the driver, upon determining that, among first and second operations each corresponding to the operation, the occupant has performed the first operation by manual input, the controller notifies the occupant that the first operation can be performed by voice input, with a higher frequency when the occupant performs the second operation by voice input than when the occupant performs the second operation by manual input.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3 and 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the occupant performs the second operation by manual input or by voice input, according to which is higher between a frequency with which the occupant performs the second operation by manual input and a frequency with which the occupant performs the second operation by voice input.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 4 and 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “ wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the occupant performs the second operation by manual input or by voice input, according to whether the occupant has performed the second operation by manual input or by voice input when the occupant has recently performed the second operation.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 5 and 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein upon determining that the occupant has performed, by manual input, at least one-step operation, among multiple-step operations each corresponding to the operation, the controller is configured to notify the occupant that a next-step operation can be performed by voice input.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6 and 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7 and 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “ wherein upon determining that the occupant has performed, by manual input, least one-step operation, among multiple-step operations each at corresponding to the operation, the controller is configured to output a voice message to make a request to the occupant for voice input corresponding to a next-step operation.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8 and 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (method)
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the specific function is a function of the vehicle or a device installed in the vehicle.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Pub. No.: 20130328768, in view of KAZUNORI, JP 2015046669 A.
With regard to claim 1:
Tanaka discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to control a specific function in response to an operation that can be performed by both manual input (See paragraph 5 wherein the input destiny function can be performed by manual input) and voice input (See paragraph 38 wherein the input destiny function can be performed by by voice input, paragraph 38), the controller being configured to notify an occupant of a vehicle that the operation can be performed by voice input (See paragraph 38 the control unit 17 may display a message, such as "destination setting can be performed via voice recognition", on one of the two display units 14, such as the display unit displaying the destination search screen.), upon determining that the occupant has performed the operation by manual input (see fig. 5 step 102 wherein the system first determines that the user has started input manual input, then notify the user that the input can be performed by voice input S110.).
Tanaka does not disclose the aspect wherein the controller being configured to notify an occupant of a vehicle that the operation can be performed by voice input with a higher frequency when the occupant is a driver than when the occupant is not the driver.
However Kazunori disclose the aspect wherein the controller being configured to notify an occupant of a vehicle that the operation can be performed by voice input with a higher frequency when the occupant is a driver than when the occupant is not the driver. (See page 10 paragraph 3 where the occupant is only notified of the operation when he or she is determined to be the driver, so the frequency for the passenger is 0 which is lower than the frequency of when the occupant is the driver.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Kazunori to Tanaka so the system can determine whether the occupant is the driver or the passenger and send out the notification based on the information wherein the driver is notified more frequently to increase driving safety and the passenger is notified less frequently to reduce annoyance.
With regard to claim 9:
Tanaka and Kazunori disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when notifying the occupant that the operation can be performed by voice input, the controller is configured to display, on a screen, a message indicating that the operation can be performed by voice input (Tanaka see fig. 4A and paragraph 33: the control unit 17 may display a message, such as "destination setting can be performed via voice recognition", on one of the two display units 14, such as the display unit displaying the destination search screen.).
With regard to claim 10:
Tanaka and Kazunori disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific function is a function of the vehicle or a device installed in the vehicle (Tanaka see paragraph 5 wherein the input destiny function can be performed by manual input or by voice input.).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 5, 7, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Pub. No.: 20130328768, in view of KAZUNORI, and further in view of Zheng, CN 102857342 B.
With regard to claim 5 and 17:
Tanaka and Kazunori do not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein upon determining that the occupant has performed, by manual input, at least one-step operation, among multiple-step operations each corresponding to the operation, the controller is configured to notify the occupant that a next-step operation can be performed by voice input.
However Zheng discloses the aspect wherein upon determining that the occupant has performed, by manual input, at least one-step operation, among multiple-step operations each corresponding to the operation, the controller is configured to notify the occupant that a next-step operation can be performed by voice input (See page 6 paragraph 7 and 8 wherein the user uses the key input or voice mode to verify the identity, the system judges whether authentication is successful. (step S507). if not passing the identity authentication, ending the whole process (step S509), and voice notification related information. if the identity authentication is successful, informing the user can voice mode, and continuing to the next step.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Zheng to Tanaka and Kazunori so the system can accurately determine that the user has complete steps of performing an interface function and notify the user about the voice input action in order to prevent accidents and provide better and more input options.
With regard to claims 7 and 19:
Tanaka and Kazunori and Zheng disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein upon determining that the occupant has performed, by manual input, least one-step operation, among multiple-step operations each at corresponding to the operation, the controller is configured to output a voice message to make a request to the occupant for voice input corresponding to a next-step operation.
(See page 6 paragraph 7 and 8 wherein the user uses the key input or voice mode to verify the identity, the system judges whether authentication is successful. (step S507). if not passing the identity authentication, ending the whole process (step S509), and voice notification related information. if the identity authentication is successful, informing the user can voice mode, and continuing to the next step.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Zheng to Tanaka and Kazunori so the system can accurately determine that the user has complete steps of performing an interface function and notify the user about the voice input action in order to prevent accidents and provide better and more input options.
Claims 6, 8, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Pub. No.: 20130328768, in view of KAZUNORI and Zheng, and further in view of Ryan Patent No.: 6330334 B1.
With regard to claims 6 and 18:
Tanaka and Kazunori and Zheng do not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu
However Ryan discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu (See paragraph 10 and 11 It then responds by vocally announcing via loud speaker 38 the major database categories available e.g. "NEWS", "SPORTS", "ENTERTAINMENT", etc. When the desired category has been announced the user responds by saying "YES". The device then announces again the sub-categories of the selected major category, and the user again selects the desired sub-category with a spoken "YES" until the specific item needed is accessed.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Ryan to Tanaka and Kazunori and Zheng so the system can determine that the user is trying to navigate a hierarchical menu and notify the user about the voice input action in order to prevent accidents and provide better and more input options.
With regard to claims 8 and 20:
Tanaka and Kazunori and Zheng do not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu.
However Ryan discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the multiple-step operations are operations of sequentially selecting options included in a hierarchical menu (See paragraph 10 and 11 It then responds by vocally announcing via loud speaker 38 the major database categories available e.g. "NEWS", "SPORTS", "ENTERTAINMENT", etc. When the desired category has been announced the user responds by saying "YES". The device then announces again the sub-categories of the selected major category, and the user again selects the desired sub-category with a spoken "YES" until the specific item needed is accessed.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Ryan to Tanaka and Kazunori and Zheng so the system can determine that the user is trying to navigate a hierarchical menu and notify the user about the voice input action in order to prevent accidents and provide better and more input options.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lenke, Pub. No.: 20200216086, teaches a vehicle includes a microphone to receive voice commands from the driver, so that the voice commands are used to determine if a change from manual mode to autonomous mode or from autonomous mode to manual mode is desired.
Sircar, Patent No.: 11210462B1: teaches Systems and methods are described for processing voice input to detect and remove voice recognition errors in the context of a product attribute query.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights