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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on 28 October 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “detection unit”, “registration unit”, and “execution unit” as recited in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the detection unit, registration unit, and execution unit are interpreted as being performed by at least a processor and a memory (“The processor 20 has a participation unit 25 and an assistance unit 26 as functional elements or functional units. In addition, the assistance unit 26 has a detection unit 27, a registration unit 28, and an execution unit 29 which are functional elements or functional units. For example, the participation unit 25 and the assistance unit 26 are realized by the processor 20, which is a computer, executing the participation program 22 and the assistance program 23 stored in the memory 21, respectively.” – see at least paragraphs 0019-0020 of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more:
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-11 are directed towards a machine (a conference assistance system). Claim 12 is directed towards a process (a conference assistance method).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recited are directed towards detecting a user action and storing and registering correspondence information in which a predetermined user action and functional operations are associated with each other. These are abstract ideas, specifically, mental processes, because the claimed steps involve merely observing a user action and associating the user action with a functional operation, which can be performed in the human mind as set forth in further detail below.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. As per claims 1 and 12, the claims are broad enough to be performed mentally or by pen and paper. The step of detecting a user action is broad enough to be performed by a human observing a user and mentally determining an action that the user is performing. The step of storing and registering correspondence information in which a predetermined user action and the function operations are associated with each other is broad enough to be performed by a human mentally associating an observer user action with a desired operation. As an example, a user audibly saying “Yes”, or a user nodding their head up and down, may be well understood to indicate the user providing a confirmation of a prompt, and may therefore be associated with a “Proceed” operation which executes an operation corresponding to the confirmed prompt.
As per the step of executing the functional operations associated with the detected user action, this step is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of insignificant application, because the functional operations are recited so broadly as to not require any particular machine or technological element to execute (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims do not include specific limitations on the type of functional operations which can be performed such that the claimed steps would be considered more than what can be reasonably performed in the human mind.
As per claim 1, the structures recited in the claims include a detection unit, a registration unit, and an execution unit, which, as set forth above in the section for Claim Interpretation, are interpreted as corresponding to a memory and a processor. Claim 1 further recites a storage device. As per claim 12, the structures recited in the claims include a computer and a storage device. These structures perform functions which are insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data processing and storage and, therefore, do not amount to integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These functions that the structures are performing are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and, therefore, the recitation of these structures does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
The technological components are recited at such a high level of generality to amount to a generic computer structure for performing generic computer functions which is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Although technological elements are included for performing the claimed steps, a mental process performed in a computer environment is still considered a mental process (see at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. There are no additional elements recited in the independent claims that amount to significantly more than performing the abstract idea. The technological components recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions of mere data processing and storage (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claims do not require any particular technological elements besides generic computer components performing functions which are well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is noted that the claimed limitations set forth detecting a user action and associating a predetermined user action with functional operations which, as noted above, can be done mentally, but none of the claimed limitations actively set forth wherein the execution of the functional operations includes functions beyond what a human could reasonably perform mentally. In other words, the claimed steps are broadly linked to the technological field of online conferences, but do not recite any specific limitations which clearly provide an improvement to this technological field in a manner which could be considered an inventive concept or integration in a practical application.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing additional limitations on how the abstract idea is performed, and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 merely recites further limitations on the type of data that is stored. Claims 3-4 recite generic and well-known means for storing the data (e.g., a storage device and a server device). Claims 5-6 are directed towards the operation of a switch, which is a generic and well-known device performing generic and well-known functions. Claim 7 merely recites further limitations on the type of user action that may be detected. Claims 8-9 are directed towards a message transmission operation, which is a well-known operation in the art. Claim 10 is directed towards turning off a microphone, which is a well-known operation in the art. Claim 11 merely recites further limitations on how the functional operations and predetermined user actions may be associated with each other. As such, none of the dependent claims provide additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, or provide a clear improvement to the technological field of online conference management.
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.
(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 1-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fröjdh et al. (US 2014/0303841), hereinafter referred to as Fröjdh.
Regarding claim 1, Fröjdh teaches:
A conference assistance system that assists a user who is an operator of a mobile object participating in an online conference from an interior of the mobile object to execute functional operations which are operations for various functions related to the online conference ("In some embodiments, the vehicle includes a wireless phone interface, inter alia a BLUETOOTH™ interface, that is controlled using tap gestures or hand slide gestures on the outer perimeter of the steering wheel. For example, a single tap answers a call and a double-tap hangs up or declines the call." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0033),
the conference assistance system comprising: a detection unit that detects a user action which is an action of the user ("The present invention also relates to a motor vehicle having a dashboard display surrounded by a frame of proximity sensors for detecting wave gestures above the frame." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0036);
a registration unit that stores and registers correspondence information in which a predetermined user action and the functional operations are associated with each other in a storage device ("In some embodiments of the present invention, the vehicle loads a user profile that configures the user interface, including assigning various gestures to respective control settings. The vehicle supports multiple users by allowing each user to download his settings to the vehicle. Thus, settings for multiple users are uploaded to an Internet server. When a driver enters a car, the driver downloads his settings from the Internet server to the vehicle, thus adapting the vehicle to his customized settings. For example, different gestures can be mapped to control different features by the driver." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0122);
and an execution unit that executes the functional operations associated with the detected user action with reference to the correspondence information based on the user action detected by the detection unit ("There is thus provided in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a system for use in a vehicle, including... an interactive deck housed in the vehicle,... and a processor housed in the vehicle, coupled with the proximity sensors and the deck, operable to identify the hand gestures detected by the proximity sensors, and to control the deck in response to thus-identified hand gestures." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 2, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the registration unit stores and registers, in the storage device, common correspondence information that is the correspondence information commonly applied to a plurality of users who use the mobile object as an operator ("A glide gesture includes the steps of a user touching this sensor and then sliding his finger along the sensor. Slider controls are suitable for selecting a value within a range, e.g., to adjust dashboard brightness or audio volume. A glide gesture in one direction gradually increases the value, and a glide gesture in the opposite direction gradually decreases the value." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0067) (The examiner notes that the glide gesture as taught by Fröjdh is an example of a user action that may be commonly applied by a plurality of users),
and individual correspondence information that is the correspondence information individually created for each of the plurality of users who use the mobile object as the operator and individually applied to a corresponding user ("In some embodiments of the present invention, the vehicle loads a user profile that configures the user interface, including assigning various gestures to respective control settings. The vehicle supports multiple users by allowing each user to download his settings to the vehicle. Thus, settings for multiple users are uploaded to an Internet server. When a driver enters a car, the driver downloads his settings from the Internet server to the vehicle, thus adapting the vehicle to his customized settings. For example, different gestures can be mapped to control different features by the driver." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0122),
and the execution unit refers to the common correspondence information and the individual correspondence information for a current user who uses the mobile object as the operator, and executes the functional operations associated with the detected user action ("There is thus provided in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a system for use in a vehicle, including... an interactive deck housed in the vehicle,... and a processor housed in the vehicle, coupled with the proximity sensors and the deck, operable to identify the hand gestures detected by the proximity sensors, and to control the deck in response to thus-identified hand gestures." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the correspondence information is stored in a storage device provided in the mobile object ("A system for use in a vehicle, comprising:... a memory for storing a plurality of different driver tables, each driver table associating each of a plurality of hand gestures with a respective control function for said deck; and a processor housed in the vehicle, coupled with said proximity sensors, said deck and said memory, operable (i) to select a driver table appropriate for a current driver, (ii) to identify the hand gestures detected by said proximity sensors, and (iii) to execute the deck control functions associated with the thus-identified hand gestures, as per the selected driver table." – see at least Fröjdh: Claim 28).
Regarding claim 4, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the correspondence information is stored in a storage device included in a server device provided outside the mobile object ("In some embodiments of the present invention, the vehicle loads a user profile that configures the user interface, including assigning various gestures to respective control settings. The vehicle supports multiple users by allowing each user to download his settings to the vehicle. Thus, settings for multiple users are uploaded to an Internet server. When a driver enters a car, the driver downloads his settings from the Internet server to the vehicle, thus adapting the vehicle to his customized settings. For example, different gestures can be mapped to control different features by the driver." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 5, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the predetermined user action associated with the functional operations in the correspondence information includes an operation of a switch provided in a device included in the mobile object ("In some embodiments, the vehicle includes a wireless phone interface, inter alia a BLUETOOTH™ interface, that is controlled using tap gestures or hand slide gestures on the outer perimeter of the steering wheel. For example, a single tap answers a call and a double-tap hangs up or declines the call." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0033) (The examiner notes that the action of tapping or double-tapping as taught by Fröjdh corresponds to the claimed operation of a switch. This interpretation is consistent with the written description of the instant application ("Similarly, the user's operation on the second steering switches 13 may be, for example, a single touch operation in which a short touch is performed once, a double touch operation in which a short touch is continuously performed twice, or a long press touch operation in which a press is continuously performed for a predetermined time." – see at least paragraph 0029 of the specification of the instant application)).
Regarding claim 6, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the mobile object is a vehicle, and the operation of the switch is an operation of a switch provided on a steering wheel of the mobile object ("In some embodiments, the vehicle includes a wireless phone interface, inter alia a BLUETOOTH™ interface, that is controlled using tap gestures or hand slide gestures on the outer perimeter of the steering wheel. For example, a single tap answers a call and a double-tap hangs up or declines the call." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 7, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the predetermined user action associated with the functional operations in the correspondence information includes a predetermined gesture action performed by the user ("There is thus provided in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a system for use in a vehicle, including... an interactive deck housed in the vehicle,... and a processor housed in the vehicle, coupled with the proximity sensors and the deck, operable to identify the hand gestures detected by the proximity sensors, and to control the deck in response to thus-identified hand gestures." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 11, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh further teaches:
wherein the correspondence information includes information that associates a plurality of the functional operations with one predetermined user action ("Zone 502 is related to a portion of the outer rim of gripping member 401. This zone is configured to receive sliding gestures, where the driver slides a finger or hand along this portion of the outer rim. An example application for this gesture is to control the volume on the vehicle's audio system, where a clockwise hand-slide or sweep gesture increases the volume, a counterclockwise hand-slide or sweep gesture reduces the volume, and a fast hand-slide or sweep gesture along zone 502 mutes the audio. If the audio is on mute, a fast hand-slide or sweep gesture along zone 502 cancels the mute. Another application is to use hand-slide or sweep gestures to answer or reject an incoming phone call. In this case a hand-slide or sweep gesture in a first direction, e.g., clockwise, answers the call, and a hand-slide or sweep gesture in the opposite direction rejects the call." – see at least Fröjdh: paragraph 0064) (The examiner notes that the aforementioned cited section of Fröjdh teaches that one user action may correspond with a plurality of functional operations (e.g., a clockwise hand-slide gesture may be used both to increase the volume of a vehicle's audio system, and to answer an incoming call)).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröjdh in view of Moscato (US 2007/0041552), hereinafter referred to as Moscato. Moscato is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of assisting a driver in performing operations related to remote communication.
Regarding claim 8, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh does not explicitly disclose, but Moscato teaches:
wherein the functional operations associated with the predetermined user action in the correspondence information include a message transmission operation of transmitting a predetermined message to other participants other than the user participating in the online conference ("The driver elects to activate the Driver-Attentive Notification System. The driver presses an activation switch located on a shaft protruding from the vehicle's steering wheel shaft. A first audio is automatically generated by the notification system stating "Attention, driver is busy." The first audio message is transmitted by the driver's cell phone to the remote caller's telephone." – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0169).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fröjdh with these above aforementioned teachings from Moscato such that the functional operations associated with the predetermined user action in the correspondence information include a message transmission operation of transmitting a predetermined message to other participants other than the user participating in the online conference. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Moscato’s method of transmitting a message to a remote participant of a call with Fröjdh’s control system on a steering wheel in order to inform the remote participant of a situation of a driver of a vehicle (“Another further object of the present invention is to create a notification system that is capable of informing a remote caller to reduce her conversation intensity level when a driver is dealing with an attentive condition that is devoid of any measurable change in road or vehicle conditions.” – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0035). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the driver of the vehicle to send a message without dangerously distracting the driver (“Thus, the reader will see that purposefully sending a message to a remote caller using the notification system can be used to quickly and easily reduce distraction to a driver who is using a cell phone while dealing with an attentive condition. The notification system reduces distraction in situations devoid of measurable changes in road, vehicle or driver conditions. The invention works without needing to collect and analyze driving or vehicle information. The invention does not create situations of false positives or positive feedback and reduces reluctance a driver may have to abruptly interrupt a remote caller in mid-sentence.” – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0164).
Regarding claim 9, Fröjdh in view of Moscato teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh does not explicitly disclose, but Moscato teaches:
wherein the message is a message notifying that the user is currently in a situation where the user cannot talk ("The remote caller stops talking in mid-sentence to hear what the first audio says, and realizes that the driver is temporarily occupied (dealing with an attentive driving condition) and she should therefore reduce her conversation intensity level by temporarily pausing her speech." – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0170) (The examiner notes that the attentive driving condition as taught by Moscato corresponds to the claimed situation where the user cannot talk).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fröjdh with these above aforementioned teachings from Moscato such that the transmitted message is a message notifying that the user is currently in a situation where the user cannot talk. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Moscato’s method of transmitting a message to a remote participant of a call with Fröjdh’s control system on a steering wheel in order to inform the remote participant that the driver of a vehicle is in a situation where they cannot talk because they must focus on driving the vehicle (“Another further object of the present invention is to create a notification system that is capable of informing a remote caller to reduce her conversation intensity level when a driver is dealing with an attentive condition that is devoid of any measurable change in road or vehicle conditions.” – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0035). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the driver of the vehicle to send a message without dangerously distracting the driver (“Thus, the reader will see that purposefully sending a message to a remote caller using the notification system can be used to quickly and easily reduce distraction to a driver who is using a cell phone while dealing with an attentive condition. The notification system reduces distraction in situations devoid of measurable changes in road, vehicle or driver conditions. The invention works without needing to collect and analyze driving or vehicle information. The invention does not create situations of false positives or positive feedback and reduces reluctance a driver may have to abruptly interrupt a remote caller in mid-sentence.” – see at least Moscato: paragraph 0164).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fröjdh in view of Hanuschak (US 2015/0295993) hereinafter referred to as Hanuschak. Hanuschak is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of assisting a driver in performing operations related to remote communication.
Regarding claim 10, Fröjdh teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Fröjdh does not explicitly disclose, but Hanuschak teaches:
wherein the functional operations associated with the predetermined user action in the correspondence information include an operation of turning on/off a microphone function of transmitting a voice of the user to other participants of the online conference ("In embodiments, information about the user input relayed by the electronic interface to the personal computing device can cause the software application running on the personal computing device to, without limitation, perform any of the following actions: dictate text or multiple choice questions to the user, activate voice recognition and transcription, commence or end a telephone or video call, mute its output, adjust its output volume, mute its input microphone, adjust its input microphone volume, turn its camera on or off, send text messages..." – see at least Hanuschak: paragraph 0088) (The examiner notes that muting the input microphone as taught by Hanuschak corresponds to turning off a microphone function as claimed. The examiner further notes that the system of Hanuschak is designed such that the user input is received by an occupant of a motor vehicle ("The apparatus includes a user interface designed to receive the user input, including tactile input, from the occupant of the motor vehicle, and an electronic interface, electrically coupled to the user interface, removably connectable to the personal computing device, and configured to relay information about the user input to the software application." – see at least Hanuschak: paragraph 0060)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fröjdh with these above aforementioned teachings from Hanuschak such that the functional operations associated with the predetermined user action in the correspondence information include an operation of turning on/off a microphone function of transmitting a voice of the user to other participants of the online conference. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hanuschak’s input microphone muting function with Fröjdh’s control system on a steering wheel in order to allow a driver of a vehicle to perform common computing functions (e.g., muting a microphone) by interacting with an easily-accessible controller mounted within the vehicle (“This vehicle-mounted controller is portable and self-contained and provides a means for a driver to interact with his personal computing device while avoiding potentially dangerous behavior. Without limitation, the user interface of the vehicle-mounted controller is adapted to accept tactile input and, in an embodiment, the user interface includes an array of touch-sensitive sensors. Triggered by tactile input from the driver, each of the touch-sensitive sensors causes a specific signal to be sent to the user's personal computing device. Software resident on the personal computing device can interpret these signals in whatever way is appropriate to the application.” – see at least Hanuschak: paragraph 0005). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the driver to operate touch-sensitive sensors on a steering wheel to perform functions which would otherwise dangerously distract the driver (“In situations where a vehicle is moving, a driver can instead use the touch-sensitive sensors 12, 14, . . . 42 to access his smart phone rather than removing his hand from the steering wheel and taking his eyes off the road to manipulate his smart phone directly.” – see at least Hanuschak: paragraph 0025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667