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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rastrow et al (20210295833).
As per claim 1, Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaches a voice command acceptance apparatus comprising:
a voice command acceptance unit that accepts a voice command; a detection unit that detects biological information on a person who speaks the voice command; and an execution control unit that, when the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command, executes a function with respect to the accepted voice command (as detecting voice input, and detecting speech volume louder/quieter than normal, as well as emotion detection – if the speech is animated – para 0198; and performing a voice command – para 0196),
wherein when the detection unit determines that the biological information on the person indicates a calm state (as determining quiet or calm – para0198), the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if a recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a first threshold (as, using a voice detection measure to verify there is voice – para 0126, measuring against an energy threshold – para 0055),
and when the detection unit determines that the biological information on the person indicates other than the calm state, the voice command acceptance unit accepts a voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold (as, after clearing the VAD thresholds, performing a secondary measurement to generate a recognized list – para 0129-0131; this section is pertinent, because it shows a secondary processing after the ”VAD” steps; with this in mind, see para 0039, wherein Rastrow et al (20210295833) discloses emotion detection (quiet or animated) corresponding to the speech; ie, this emotion detection occurs after it has been determined that speech DOES exist; therefore, Rastrow et al (20210295833) determines, after VAD, if the speech is quiet/animated, using measurements (ie, one of ordinary skill in the art of speech recognition/emotion detection would easily recognize the use of thresholds to determine quiet/animated categories; in view of para 0129-0131, it would follow that Rastrow et al (20210295833) uses a second set of thresholds, post VAD, to make these determinations).
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 2-4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastrow et al (20210295833) in view of Clough (20170061784).
As per claims 2-4, Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaches the claim limitations of claim 1, from which claims 2-4 depend (see mapping above, to claim 1). Further to claims 2,3, Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaches the more general concept of evaluating emotion in the persons speech (either calm/quiet or agitated, para 0198), but does not explicitly teach the monitoring of a heartbeat/heartrate to determine the emotion. Clough (20170061784) teaches the use of an electrodermal measure to measure stress of the user (para 0123), in determining emotional status of the user for controlling – end of para 0123, and a determination of the state-of-mind of the operator, to reject/accept a voice command – para 0084 (command authorization decision), para 0087 voice command. Clough (20170061784) further teaches the sensors to read other biological markers, including hear rate – para 0078, and para 0077. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of voice command interpretation to modify the emotional detection system of Rastrow et al (20210295833) with the added measure of heartrate based stress measurement, as disclosed with the electrodermal stress measurement and voice command decision, as taught by Clough (20170061784) because it would advantageously filter/remove any voice command that may be negative/of detriment to the user (see Clough (20170061784), para 0077).
Further to claims 2,3, the combination of Rastrow et al (20210295833) in view of Clough (20170061784) teaches the use of thresholds to determine acceptance/rejection (see Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaching after VAD, if the speech is quiet/animated, using measurements (ie, one of ordinary skill in the art of speech recognition/emotion detection would easily recognize the use of thresholds to determine quiet/animated categories; in view of para 0129-0131, it would follow that Rastrow et al (20210295833) uses a second set of thresholds, post VAD, to make these determinations); Clough (20170061784) teaches valid voice command based on calm/stress determination – para 0078/0083, and indicators of competency of the operator based on the emotional state. Furthermore, the thresholds/levels in Clough (20170061784) are unique to each determination – see para 0084, sufficient level for overall command approval, as well as sufficient levels for the emotions state of the user.
As per claim 4, the combination of Rastrow et al (20210295833) in view of Clough (20170061784) teaches the voice command acceptance apparatus according to any one of claim 1, wherein the voice command acceptance unit accepts, with respect to one of a highly emergent voice command and a highly instantaneous voice command, the voice command if the recognition rate of the voice command that is acquired by the voice command acceptance unit is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold (see Clough (20170061784), with not only thresholds for allowable commands based on the emotional state of the user – para 0083, but further tracking of the number of rejections (second threshold) of the command – see para 0084, end).
Claim 6 is a method claim whose steps are executed by an apparatus, with said executed steps are performed by the device/apparatus 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastrow et al (20210295833) in view of Fields et al (20150254955).
As per claim 5, Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaches the claim limitations of claim 1, from which claims 2-4 depend (see mapping above, to claim 1). Further to claim 5, Rastrow et al (20210295833) teaches the more general concept of evaluating emotion in the persons speech (either calm/quiet or agitated, para 0198), but does not explicitly teach the use of the system in a vehicle, with display feedback; Fields et al (20150254955) teaches the monitoring of a vehicle operator, their emotionally state (via heart rate, voice modulation, etc.), abstract, and in further detail, monitor stress in the operators voice – para 0046; with video capture/operation as well, during the detected event – see para 0062. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of voice monitoring and emotional detection, to use the techniques of Rastrow et al (20210295833) into a vehicle-operator environment, as taught by Fields et al (20150254955), because it would advantageously provide realtime feedback to the user/operator so as to improve the effectiveness of the user, by feedback-ing the state of the operator, and to increase a factor of safety – see Fields et al (20150254955), para 0073, last sentence..
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 contain elements common to applicants spec/claim features:
Ricci (20200057783) teaches gesture/emotion detection for vehicle controls – para 0239/claims
Fujita (20210082427) teaches the analysis of voice to detect behavior – see para 0117, 0123
Owens et al (20190102963) teaches the analysis of the emotion of the passenger in a vehicle to recognize commands – para 0025 reflecting back on para 0024.
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 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights