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 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 1 – 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibley (US 10,242,457 B1) in view Of Pak (US Pub. No. 2023/0056582 A1).
As to claims 1 and 5, Sibley shows an information processing device (Fig. 8 and Col. 24, lines 14 – 21) and an associated methodology (Fig. 7 and Col. 19, lines 29 – 52) that controls an output section (i.e. display surfaces 106), which is used to output content (Figs. 1A and 1B and Col. 10, lines 17 – 39), so as to provide the content to a first passenger (306(1)) and a second passenger (306(2)) who are on a traveling body (i.e. a vehicle, Fig. 3A and Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 5), the information processing device comprising: an information obtaining section (i.e. sensors 302) configured to obtain pieces of attribute information indicative of a first attribute associated with the first passenger and a second attribute associated with the second passenger (i.e. gaze direction, for example, Figs. 3A, 3B and 3C, Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 5, and Col. 12, lines 19 – 34 and/or content based on user profile, Col. 13, line 61 – Col. 14, line 9); a determining section (i.e. controller 102) configured to determine, on a basis of the pieces of attribute information of the first and second passengers, first content which is to be provided to the first passenger and second content which is to be provided to the second passenger (Fig. 8, Col. 13, line 37 – Col. 14, line 31, and Col. 24 lines 14 – 21); and an output control section (i.e. controller 102) configured to cause the first content to be provided from the output section to the first passenger and to cause the second content to be provided from the output section to the second passenger (Fig. 8, Col. 13, line 37 – Col. 14, line 31, and Col. 24 lines 14 – 21).
Sibley does not show that the attribute information includes a destination associated with each passenger, and that the content is based on the destination of each passenger.
Pak shows the methodology of providing content to a specific passenger based on collected attribute information which includes destination information (paras. 42, 72, 73, 76 and 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sibley with those of Pak because designing the system in this way allows the device of optimizing content throughout the passenger’s journey (para. 175).
As to claim 2, Sibley shows that the output section is a display device provided to the traveling body (Figs. 1A and 1B and Col. 10, lines 17 – 39), the display device being disposed at a position where the display device is at least partially visually recognizable by the first and second passengers (Figs. 3A – 3C and Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 34); and the output control section determines, on a basis of positions, orientations, and postures of seats on which the first and second passengers sit (Col. 3, lines 8 – 26), a first area that is visually observable by the first passenger and a second area that is visually observable by the second passenger (Figs. 3A – 3C and Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 34), and the output control section causes the first content to be displayed on the first area and causes the second content to be displayed on the second area (Figs. 3A – 3C and Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 34).
As to claim 3, Sibley shows that while a first seat on which the first passenger sits and a second seat on which the second passenger sits face each other (Figs. 3A – 3C), the output control section causes content corresponding to an attribute which is common to the first and second passengers to be displayed on an area that is visually recognizable by the first and second passengers (Fig. 6A and Col. 17, lines 25 – 33).
As to claim 4, Sibley shows that the first and second seats are arranged along a traveling direction of the traveling body (Figs. 1A and 3A – 3C); and the display device is provided to side walls located on left and right sides as seen in the traveling direction of the traveling body (Figs. 3A – 3C), each of the plurality of display devices having a display area extending in the traveling direction of the traveling body (Figs. 3A – 3C).
As to claim 6, Sibley shows a vehicle comprising: an information processing device recited in claim 1; and the output section (see rejection above, Fig. 1A and Col. 10, lines 17 – 39).
As to claim 7, Sibley shows a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing device recited in claim 1 (See rejection above and Col. 19, lines 29 – 52), the program causing the computer to function as the information obtaining section, the determining section, and the output control section (See rejection above and Col. 19, lines 29 – 52).
As to claims 9 and 10, Sibley does not show that the attribute information further includes demographic information associated with the first passenger and the second passenger, respectively, and the demographic information includes at least one of gender, age, nationality, and language, the first content is further based on the demographic information associated with the first passenger, and the second content is further based on the demographic information associated with the second passenger.
Pak shows the methodology providing content based on attribute information about a passenger that includes demographic information, the demographic information including age (para. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sibley with those of Pak because designing the system in this way allows the device of optimizing content throughout the passenger’s journey (para. 175).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Specifically, claim 8 recites “…the first area includes an upper display area located on an upper portion of the first area, the determining section is further configured to determine third content based on common attribute information that is shared between the first passenger and the second passenger, and the output control section causes the third content to be displayed on the upper display area of the first area.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights