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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, claim 1: 1) recites “one or more processing resources”, however it is unclear. claims 2-5 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 6 and 15 have similar issues as claim 1, and therefore are indefinite. Consequently their respective dependent claims 7-14 and 16-20 have the same issue. 2) Recites “determine a target driving behavior for a driver”, however it is unclear. claims 2-5 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 6 and 15 have similar issues as claim 1, and therefore are indefinite. Consequently their respective dependent claims 7-14 and 16-20 have the same issue. 3) Recites “identify a persona for a visual avatar”, however it is unclear. claims 2 and 5 have the same issue due to dependency. 4) Recites “influence the driver to engage in the target driving behavior, however it is unclear. claims 2-5 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 6 and 15 have similar issues as claim 1, and therefore are indefinite. Consequently their respective dependent claims 7-14 and 16-20 have the same issue. In particular, claim 5 recites “displaying the visual avatar of the identified persona to appear in a passenger seat of the vehicle”, however it is unclear how the visual avatar is able to displayed to appear in a passenger seat of the vehicle.Furthermore, claim 12 has similar issues, and therefore is indefinite. In particular, claims 6 recites “identifying a persona for an artificial intelligence (AI) assistant”, however it is unclear. claims 7-8 and 11-14 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base 15 has similar issues as claim 1, and therefore is indefinite. Consequently its dependent 16-17 and 20 have the same issue. In particular, claim 11 recites “the acquaintance speaking in a voice of the acquaintance; or the person in the second vehicle speaking in a voice of the person in the second vehicle. The is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations. Claim 12 has the same issue due to dependency. In particular, claim 20 recites “the acquaintance speaking in a voice of the acquaintance; or the person in the second vehicle speaking in a voice of the person in the second vehicle. The is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (“Friedman”, US 20190255995 A1, IDS) in view of Hermina et al. (“Hermina”, US 20200066055 A1), Back (US 20250124683 A1) and Herz et al. (“Herz”, US 12015817 B2, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 1, Friedman discloses a system (Fig. 2) comprising: As per the limitation an augmented reality (AR) device. Friedman discloses, in ¶16, that the system may include a augmented reality (AR) system. Hermina discloses, in abstract; ¶39 with reference to Fig. 2, the concept of using a server in communication with a vehicle, to provide augmentation capabilities within the vehicle. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a server in communication with a vehicle, to provide augmentation capabilities within the vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the augmentation features of the system. As per the limitation one or more processing resources (Hermina: Fig. 2: virtual reality module 222); and non-transitory computer-readable medium (Hermina: Fig. 2: data store 224), coupled to the one or more processing resources (Hermina: ¶¶53, 106, 108; Fig. 2), comprising stored instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources (Hermina: ¶¶106, 108). As per the limitation cause the system to determine a target driving behavior for a driver of a vehicle based on driving situation. Back discloses, in ¶53, the concept of determining potential collision driving behavior based on current driving situations to assist a driver in obtaining non- non-collision driving behavior driving behavior conditions (corresponding to a target driving behavior). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining potential collision driving behavior based on current driving situations to assist a driver in obtaining non- non-collision driving behavior driving behavior conditions, with the motivation to enhance the . As per the limitation identify a persona for a visual avatar with a highest predicted probability of influencing the driver to engage in the target driving behavior. Herz discloses, in Col. 13, lines 17-58, the concept of configuring a server to perform likelihood assignment analysis for content to be provided when selecting content for a target outcome. Make note that Herz discloses, in Col. 7, lines 24-42, that the content generation involves avatar and simulated personality cartoon characterization. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a server to perform likelihood assignment analysis for content to be provided when selecting content for a target outcome, with the motivation to enhance interaction features of the system. As per the limitation display, to the driver via the AR device, the visual avatar of the identified persona presenting information to influence the driver to engage in the target driving behavior. Hermina illustrates, in ¶¶44-48 with reference to Fig. 3, displaying a visual avatar to engage and influence a driver. Back discloses, in ¶53, the concept of determining potential collision driving behavior based on current driving situations to assist a driver in obtaining non-collision driving behavior conditions. Herz discloses, in Col. 13, lines 17-58, the concept of configuring a server to perform likelihood assignment analysis for content to be provided when selecting content for a target outcome. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate presenting the displayed avatar to influence non-collision driving behavior of the driver, with the motivation to enhance the driver awareness features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 5, wherein displaying the visual avatar of the identified persona comprises displaying the visual avatar of the identified persona to appear in a passenger seat of the vehicle (Hermina: Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Hermina and Herz, and in further view of Okamoto et al. (“Okamoto”, JP 2022064092 A). 1) Regarding claim 3, wherein the identified persona comprises: an acquaintance of the driver; or a person in a second vehicle proximate the vehicle in a traffic segment. Okamoto discloses, on page 2, the concept of using a driver’s acquaintance as a displayed avatar to assistance a driver. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a driver’s acquaintance as a displayed avatar to assistance a driver, with the motivation to enhance the driver assistance features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 4, wherein displaying the visual avatar of the identified persona presenting the information to the driver comprises displaying the visual avatar of the identified persona presenting the information in a speaking voice of: the acquaintance (Friedman: ¶14; Hermina: ¶¶2-3, 8, 32, 41, 50; Fig. 3; Back: ¶35, each involve voice communication engagements); or the person in the second vehicle.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Hermina and Herz, and in further view of Lin et al. (“Lin”, US 20190205727 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 6 and 15, Friedman, Hermina, Back and Herz with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach a vehicle (Friedman: Fig. 2) comprising: one or more processing resources (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); and non-transitory computer-readable medium (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), coupled to the one or more processing resources (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), comprising stored instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), cause the vehicle to: determine a target driving behavior for a driver of the vehicle based on driving situation (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1). As per the limitation identify a persona for an artificial intelligence (AI) assistant with a highest predicted probability of influencing the driver to engage in the target driving behavior. Friedman, Hermina, Back and Herz system identifies a highest predicted probability of influencing the driver to engage in the target driving behavior, see analysis of the rejection of claim 1. Lin discloses, in ¶59, the concept of integrating a AI virtual assist to provide driving influencing/assistance persona content to a driver of a vehicle. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of integrating a AI virtual assist to provide driving influencing/assistance persona content to a driver of a vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the driving assistance features of the system. As per the limitation using the AI assistant with the identified persona to present information to the driver to influence the driver to engage in the target driving behavior (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1; also see Lin: ¶59). 2) Regarding claims 8 and 17, wherein the identified persona comprises at least one of a visual persona and a voice persona (Friedman: ¶14; Hermina: ¶¶2-3, 8, 32, 41, 50; Fig. 3; Back: ¶35).
Claim(s) 9-12 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Hermina, Herz and Lin, and in further view of Okamoto. 1) Regarding claims 9 and 18, wherein the identified persona comprises: an acquaintance of the driver; or a person in a second vehicle proximate the vehicle in a traffic segment. Okamoto discloses, on page 2, the concept of using a driver’s acquaintance as a displayed avatar to assistance a driver. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a driver’s acquaintance as a displayed avatar to assistance a driver, with the motivation to enhance the driver assistance features of the system. 2) Regarding claims 10 and 19, with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Okamoto, in the rejection of claim 3, Friedman, Hermina, Herz and Lin, and Okamoto teach wherein the voice persona comprises a voice of: an acquaintance of the driver (Friedman: ¶14; Hermina: ¶¶2-3, 8, 32, 41, 50; Fig. 3; Back: ¶35, each involve voice communication engagements); or a person in a second vehicle proximate the vehicle in a traffic segment. 3) Regarding claims 11 and 20, with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Okamoto, in the rejection of claim 3, Friedman, Hermina, Herz and Lin, and Okamoto teach wherein using the AI assistant with the identified persona to present the information to the driver comprises using an augmented reality (AR) device to display, to the driver, the visual avatar of: the acquaintance speaking in a voice of the acquaintance (Friedman: ¶14; Hermina: ¶¶2-3, 8, 32, 41, 50; Fig. 3; Back: ¶35, each involve voice communication engagements); or the person in the second vehicle speaking in a voice of the person in the second vehicle. 4) Regarding claim 12, wherein using the AR device to display the visual avatar to the driver comprises: using the AR device to display the visual avatar to appear in a passenger seat of the vehicle (Hermina: Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 7, 13-14 & 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180253882 A1; US 20210291841 A1, system generates personal avatar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights