DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 3/4/2023. Claims 1 and 13-23 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025 and 6/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023022831, filed on 06/20/2023.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a device information acquisition unit” and “a mode setting unit” in claim 1: “a storage processing unit” in claim 13: “an output control unit” and “an input unit” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 23 is drawn to a “signal” per se as recited in the preamble and as such is non-statutory subject matter and is not defined as to what the scope of the term is meant to encompass. Hence, one of ordinary skilled in the art can interpret such term to include transitory signals and non-transitory signals. It does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in § 101. First, a claimed signal is clearly not a "process" under § 101 because it is not a series of steps. The other three § 101 classes of machine, compositions of matter and manufactures "relate to structural entities and can be grouped as 'product' claims in order to contrast them with process claims." 1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.02 (1994).
The Applicant’s Specification presents a broad definition as to what the “computer-readable storage medium” covers and is being made to include transitory and non-transitory signals. The Applicant’s Published Specification in paragraph [15], refers to the “storage medium”. Hence, it appears that the claims appear to be drawn towards transitory signals, which is not subject matter eligible. In order to overcome the present rejection, the Applicant is advised to amend the claims by using the following terminology: "non-transitory machine readable storage medium." Such example terminology has been also found in the Official Gazette 1351 OG 212.
Claims 1, 13-18, and 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 22, and 23 recite An information processing device comprising: a device information acquisition unit acquiring device information regarding a [communication device] located inside the mobile body and a mode setting unit setting, based on the device information acquired by the device information acquisition unit, either a first mode in which the information processing device operates as a voice recognition device when a first keyword is detected or a second mode in which the information processing device operates as the voice recognition device even when the first keyword is not detected.
The limitations in these claims, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The human mind is capable of determining the number of people and/or devices that are in a vehicle and making a choice based on the amount. The first and second mode in this scenario could represent how someone would like to be addressed when they are asked a question. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional component of a communication device. The communication device performs the pre-solution activity of gathering data which is necessary for the method to be performed. The communication device is also merely being used to apply the mental process via a generic computing device. The communication device is detailed in paragraph 55 of the specification with a generic description and general purpose example devices listed. Claim 13 specifically lists the additional component of a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium is merely used to apply the method using a generic computing device. The computer-readable storage medium is described in paragraph 15 of the specification with a generic description and examples. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites a storage processing unit storing information regarding the presence or absence of a passenger in the mobile body and the device information in association with each other as a mode determination information, wherein the mode setting unit setting either the first mode or the second mode based on the device information and previously stored the mode determination information.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human is capable of memorizing the amount of people/devices present and using that information to make a selection. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites an output control unit outputting question information regarding the presence or absence of the passenger in a mobile body; an input unit receiving answer information regarding an answer of an occupant to the question information, wherein the storage processing unit storing the answer information, which is the information regarding the presence or absence of the passenger in the mobile body and the device information in association with each other as the mode determination information.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can ask how many passengers are in a vehicle and memorize the answer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites wherein the mode setting unit determining whether to omit the question information by using the device information acquired by the device information acquisition unit and previously stored the mode determination information, wherein the output control unit does not output the question information when the mode setting unit determined to omit the question information.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can choose to omit a question based on prior knowledge of the amount of people/devices in the car. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites wherein the storage processing unit erases a specific mode determination information when a second keyword is input to the input unit.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can change the “mode” of how they’re accepting questions based on receiving another input. For example, someone asking to change the intro word they use to their questions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites wherein the output control unit outputs the question information again when a third keyword is input to the input unit.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can repeat a question when requested to do so. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites wherein after the mode setting unit sets the second mode, when the device information acquisition unit detects that the number of the communication devices in the mobile body has increased, the mode setting unit performs switching from the second mode to the first mode.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can change the selection they made if the number of device/people change. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites wherein a state before the mobile body moves is defined as a first state, and a state after a predetermined time has elapsed since the mobile body moves or a state after the mobile body has moved by a predetermined distance is defined as a second state, andthe device information acquisition unit determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by comparing the device information acquired in the first state with the device information acquired in the second state.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can compare the number of people/devices when the car isn’t moving and when it has started moving. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites wherein the device information acquisition unit repeatedly acquires the device information, and determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by using device history information regarding an acquisition history of the device information.
The limitations in this claim, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can repeatedly check how many people/devices are in a car. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional components that were not present in the independent claim. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Publication CN 111819626 A (Wei et al.) in view of US Patent Publication US 20230188604 A1 (Jang et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 22, and 23, Wei et al. teaches An information processing device comprising:
(The embodiment of the invention claims a voice prompt method and device, when it is necessary to operate the intelligent device, it can reduce the wake-up action of the intelligent device.) (Page 2, Paragraph 2).
Claim 22 presents the alternative An information processing method executed by an information processing device, comprising:
(The embodiment of the invention claims a voice prompt method and device, when it is necessary to operate the intelligent device, it can reduce the wake-up action of the intelligent device.) (Page 2, Paragraph 2).
Claim 23 presents the alternative A computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer installed in an information processing device to execute:
(In yet another aspect, the embodiments of the present invention provide a computer storage medium for storing computer software instructions for the voice device, which comprises a program for executing the above aspects.) (Page 4, Paragraph 2).
a device information acquisition unit acquiring (device information regarding a communication device) (Taught by Jang et al.) located inside the mobile body
(In one possible design, the voice device judges the number of the voice device in the space, comprising: the voice device according to the voice print information, iris information, portrait information, fingerprint information, one or more sensing data in the voice device in the space of the number. the voice device identifies the number of the voice device in the space by a plurality of ways, and comprehensively judges, improves the accuracy of identifying the number of people in the space of the voice device.) (Page 2, Paragraph 4).
The number of people in a vehicle is obtained using various methods.
a mode setting unit setting, based on the device information acquired by the device information acquisition unit,
(In one possible design, when the voice device judges that there are multiple people in the space, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode; the voice device receives the awakening word or comprises the fourth voice of the awakening word; the voice device enters the voice interactive mode or voice identification and executes the function corresponding to the fourth voice. In this example, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode, which can realize voice interaction based on the wake word.) (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
A mode is set based on the number of devices detected.
either a first mode in which the information processing device operates as a voice recognition device when a first keyword is detected
(In one possible design, when the voice device judges that there are multiple people in the space, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode; the voice device receives the awakening word or comprises the fourth voice of the awakening word; the voice device enters the voice interactive mode or voice identification and executes the function corresponding to the fourth voice. In this example, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode, which can realize voice interaction based on the wake word.) (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
There is a mode in which voice recognition waits for a keyword.
or a second mode in which the information processing device operates as the voice recognition device even when the first keyword is not detected.
(In one possible design, the voice device enters the wake-free voice interactive mode, the method further comprises: the voice device receives the third voice, the third voice does not comprise a wake-up word; the voice device identifies and executes the function corresponding to the third voice. In this example, the voice device enters the wake-free voice interactive mode after identifying the third voice not including the wake word, and executing the corresponding function, which can realize the voice interaction times of reducing the wake word.) (Page 3, Paragraph 5).
Another mode corresponds to keyword-free activation.
Wei et al. teaches determing the number of passengers in a vehicle but does not explicitly teach gathering device information as in: a device information acquisition unit acquiring device information regarding a communication device located inside the mobile body
However, Jang et al. teaches a device information acquisition unit acquiring device information regarding a communication device located inside the mobile body
(The short-range wireless communication module 1230 may perform short-range wireless communication with the mobile device 20 (see FIG. 1) of a user getting on or off the vehicle. The short-range wireless communication module 1230 may include a near-field communication (NFC) tagging module 1232 and an RFID module 1234. The NFC tagging module 1232 may obtain information about the number of occupants getting on or off the vehicle 100, by counting the number of mobile devices 20, through an NFC tag with respect to the mobile device 20 of the user. The NFC tagging module 1232 may provide the obtained information about the number of occupants to the processor 1300. The RFID module 1234 may perform RFID communication with a transportation card (for example, a bus card) or a credit card of the user and obtain information about the number of occupants getting on or off the vehicle 100. According to an embodiment, the RFID module 1234 may perform short-range wireless communication with the mobile device 20 through an RFID tag included in the mobile device 20 of the user.) (Paragraphs 79-81).
Jang et al. teaches gathering information on how many devices are in a vehicle using NFC or RFID.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the voice recognition method as taught by Wei et al. to detect the number of devices in a vehicle as a means of tracking the number of people as taught by Jang et al. This would have been an obvious improvement to enable alternative tracking sensors such as NFC/RFID sensors (Jang et al. Paragraph 79).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Wei et al. further teaches a storage processing unit storing information regarding the presence or absence of a passenger in the mobile body and the device information in association with each other as a mode determination information,
(In one possible design, the voice device enters the wake-free voice interactive mode, the method further comprises: … In one possible design, when the voice device judges that there are multiple people in the space, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode; the voice device receives the awakening word or comprises the fourth voice of the awakening word;) (Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6).
(The data transmission is passed through the modem to the server 82 and/or the database 84. database 84 can store account information, such as user identity verification information, vehicle identifier, data chart (profile) record, behavior mode and other related user information) (Page 8, Paragraph 5).
A database stores the current mode selection such as the decision between wake-free and wake mode.
wherein the mode setting unit setting either the first mode or the second mode based on the device information and previously stored the mode determination information.
(In one possible design, the voice device enters the wake-free voice interactive mode, the method further comprises: … In one possible design, when the voice device judges that there are multiple people in the space, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode; the voice device receives the awakening word or comprises the fourth voice of the awakening word;) (Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6).
(The method for identifying the number of people in the vehicle can be realized in multiple ways. For example: The voiceprint identification only identifies one person, but the other way of identifying the number of people in the vehicle is identified as a plurality of people, then processing according to the way of a plurality of people.) (Page 16, Paragraph 8).
The various methods of determining the number of devices are stored and compared to one another to verify the determination.
Regarding Claim 14, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 13.
Wei et al. further teaches an output control unit outputting question information regarding the presence or absence of the passenger in a mobile body;
(For example, the number of people in the vehicle can be judged by voice inquiry. Specifically, the machine can through inquiring how many people in the vehicle, then the passenger in the vehicle or the driver answer mode to judge the number of people in the vehicle.) (Page 16, Paragraph 6).
The system can output a question to obtain the number of people.
an input unit receiving answer information regarding an answer of an occupant to the question information,
(For example, the number of people in the vehicle can be judged by voice inquiry. Specifically, the machine can through inquiring how many people in the vehicle, then the passenger in the vehicle or the driver answer mode to judge the number of people in the vehicle.) (Page 16, Paragraph 6).
A passenger provides an answer for the number of passengers in the vehicle.
wherein the storage processing unit storing the answer information, which is the information regarding the presence or absence of the passenger in the mobile body and the device information in association with each other as the mode determination information.
(In one possible design, the voice device enters the wake-free voice interactive mode, the method further comprises: … In one possible design, when the voice device judges that there are multiple people in the space, the voice device enters the wake voice interactive mode; the voice device receives the awakening word or comprises the fourth voice of the awakening word;) (Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6).
(The data transmission is passed through the modem to the server 82 and/or the database 84. database 84 can store account information, such as user identity verification information, vehicle identifier, data chart (profile) record, behaviour mode and other related user information) (Page 8, Paragraph 5).
The determination of the wake-free or wake voice interactive mode is stored in the device’s database.
Regarding Claim 16, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 14.
Wei et al. further teaches wherein the storage processing unit erases a specific mode determination information when a second keyword is input to the input unit.
(The method for identifying the number of people in the vehicle can be realized in multiple ways. For example: The voiceprint identification only identifies one person, but the other way of identifying the number of people in the vehicle is identified as a plurality of people, then processing according to the way of a plurality of people.) (Page 16, Paragraph 8).
(For example, the number of people in the vehicle can be judged by voice inquiry. Specifically, the machine can through inquiring how many people in the vehicle, then the passenger in the vehicle or the driver answer mode to judge the number of people in the vehicle.) (Page 16, Paragraph 6).
By providing an answer to the number of people in the vehicle it can overwrite any other determinations on the number. For example, if the system estimated the number of passengers to be one using a camera but then the passenger stated that there were two passengers the value from the camera would be erased in favor of the value showing a plurality of passengers.
Regarding Claim 18, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Jang et al. further teaches wherein after the mode setting unit sets the second mode, when the device information acquisition unit detects that the number of the communication devices in the mobile body has increased, the mode setting unit performs switching from the second mode to the first mode.
(According to another embodiment, the determining of whether to change the first communication scheme may include, when, based on the result of the comparing, the predicted data throughput exceeds the predetermined threshold value, determining to change the first communication scheme to the second communication scheme, and the method may further include transmitting and receiving data by using the changed second communication scheme.) (Paragraph 18).
(The electronic device 1000 may predict a data throughput through the communication interface 1500, by using the number of occupants, the information about the number of connectors accessing the communication interface 1500, the information about the use amount of data transmitted and received to and from the base station 200 through the communication relay function of the communication interface 1500, and information about the operation pattern of the occupants 10 recognized through the OMS.) (Paragraph 66).
The system tracks the number of passengers and changes modes when a threshold is exceeded.
Regarding Claim 19, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Jang et al. further teaches wherein the device information acquisition unit uses radio wave intensity information regarding an intensity of a radio wave to determine whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body.
(According to another embodiment, the electronic device 1000 may count the number of occupants by tracking the persons getting on or off the vehicle 100, through a near-field communication (NFC) tag, radio frequency identification (RFID), or the like.) (Paragraph 63)
Jang et al. uses radio frequency identification to track the number of devices.
Claims 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Publication CN 111819626 A (Wei et al.) in view of US Patent Publication US 20230188604 A1 (Jang et al.) and further in view of US Patent Publication US 20200013396 A1 (Park et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 14.
Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches setting a mode based on device information, however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the mode setting unit determining whether to omit the question information by using the device information acquired by the device information acquisition unit and previously stored the mode determination information, wherein the output control unit does not output the question information when the mode setting unit determined to omit the question information.
However, Park et al. teaches wherein the mode setting unit determining whether to omit the question information by using the device information acquired by the device information acquisition unit and previously stored the mode determination information,
(The pre-utterance determiner 151 may determine whether to output the pre-utterance based on the pre-utterance condition related to the estimation of the change in the number of passengers, based on the context information related to before arriving at a stop-over point. … The pre-utterance determiner 151 may acquire a pre-utterance message corresponding to the pre-utterance context in which the change in the number of passengers is estimated, such as “A will exit at the stop-over point.”, “B will re-board after exiting the vehicle at the stop-over point.”, “C will not exit at the stop-over point.”, and “D will board at the stop-over point”, based on the passenger number information.) (Paragraphs 876-877).
The system determines whether a pre-utterance (question on passenger info) should be output based on prior information of the passengers.
wherein the output control unit does not output the question information when the mode setting unit determined to omit the question information.
(The pre-utterance determiner 151 may determine whether to output the pre-utterance based on the pre-utterance condition related to the estimation of the change in the number of passengers, based on the context information related to before arriving at a stop-over point.) (Paragraphs 876).
If it does not determine it should output a pre-utterance it is omitting the question.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the voice recognition method as taught by Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. to omit the question regarding the number of passengers as taught by Park et al. This would have been an obvious improvement so that the question is only output when the information is not already known (Park et al. Paragraph 876).
Regarding Claim 20, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches setting a mode based on device information, however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein a state before the mobile body moves is defined as a first state, a state after a predetermined time has elapsed since the mobile body moves or a state after the mobile body has moved by a predetermined distance is defined as a second state, and the device information acquisition unit determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by comparing the device information acquired in the first state with the device information acquired in the second state.
However, Park et al. teaches wherein a state before the mobile body moves is defined as a first state,
(In addition, contents, which is related to the possibility of exiting the vehicle at the stop-over point for each passenger, the possibility of re-boarding at the stop-over point for each passenger, and the possibility of boarding at the stop-over point, may include a message about the number of passengers exiting the vehicle, such as “see you again”, and a message about a passenger who re-boards the vehicle after exiting, such as “have a nice trip and come back safely”.) (Paragraph 873).
In the determination process there is a stop-over point which represents the state when the vehicle body is not moving.
a state after a predetermined time has elapsed since the mobile body moves or a state after the mobile body has moved by a predetermined distance is defined as a second state, and
(In addition, the dialogue system 100 may perform the identification of the passenger based on the dialogue among occupants in the vehicle and the vehicle operation information for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 starts to drive or for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 stops driving. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may continuously identify a new passenger.) (Paragraph 435)
(The dialogue system 100 may determine whether the vehicle is right before arriving at the stop-over point or the vehicle is right after arriving at the stop-over point, based on the vehicle state information such as the vehicle position and the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle detector 260) (Paragraph 874)
The information is monitored while the vehicle is moving. For example, the state prior to it stopping and a period of time after it starts moving.
the device information acquisition unit determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by comparing the device information acquired in the first state with the device information acquired in the second state.
(After the vehicle departs the stop-over point, the input processor may determine the change in the number of passengers in the vehicle based on the dialogue among the occupants and the vehicle operation information, compare an estimated change in the number of passengers in the vehicle based on the passenger number information with the determined change in the number of passengers, and acquire the pre-utterance message based on a result of the Comparison.) (Paragraph 15).
(In addition, the dialogue system 100 may perform the identification of the passenger based on the dialogue among occupants in the vehicle and the vehicle operation information for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 starts to drive or for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 stops driving. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may continuously identify a new passenger.) (Paragraph 435)
(However, the dialogue system 100 may output the pre-utterance related to the estimation result of the change in the number of passengers based on the passenger number information, not only before arriving at the stop-over point, but also after arriving at the stop-over point.) (Paragraph 872).
The number of passengers is updated at the various states and comparisons are made between the measured number and estimated number at that state.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the voice recognition method as taught by Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. to track the number of passengers at different “states” as taught by Park et al. This would have been an obvious improvement so that the system verifies the estimated number of passengers at each stop where it is likely to change (Park et al. Paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 21, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches setting a mode based on device information, however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the device information acquisition unit repeatedly acquires the device information, and determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by using device history information regarding an acquisition history of the device information.
However, Park et al. teaches wherein the device information acquisition unit repeatedly acquires the device information, and determines whether or not the communication device is located inside the mobile body by using device history information regarding an acquisition history of the device information.
(After the vehicle departs the stop-over point, the input processor may determine the change in the number of passengers in the vehicle based on the dialogue among the occupants and the vehicle operation information, compare an estimated change in the number of passengers in the vehicle based on the passenger number information with the determined change in the number of passengers, and acquire the pre-utterance message based on a result of the Comparison.) (Paragraph 15).
(In addition, the dialogue system 100 may perform the identification of the passenger based on the dialogue among occupants in the vehicle and the vehicle operation information for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 starts to drive or for a certain period time since the vehicle 200 stops driving. Therefore, the dialogue system 100 may continuously identify a new passenger.) (Paragraph 435)
New passengers are continuously searched for by comparing the measured value to an expected value for the number of devices/passengers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the voice recognition method as taught by Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. for the same reason as shown in in claim 20 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Publication CN 111819626 A (Wei et al.) in view of US Patent Publication US 20230188604 A1 (Jang et al.) and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication WO 2015021208 A1 (Quinn et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. teaches the system of claim 14.
Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. does not explicitly teach: wherein the output control unit outputs the question information again when a third keyword is input to the input unit.
However, Quinn et al. teaches wherein the output control unit outputs the question information again when a third keyword is input to the input unit.
(In particular, the apparatus or method may monitor continuously for control commands. For example, a patient (e.g., subject, user, etc.) may verbally indicate (hands free) a command to interrupt, request repeating, request making it louder (volume control), slow down/speed up the presentation of the portion(s), request more detail on a portion, indicate problems requiring contact with caregivers or clinical staff via phone or messaging, and/or request skipping to other portions of the health care information.) (Paragraph 14).
(a repeat command, which may repeat the most recent piece of information presented ("repeat", "what was that?", "say that again", "say again", "one more time", etc.);) (Paragraph 31).
Quinn et al. teaches a repeat command for a voice recognition system which causes the system to repeat the last piece of information it output. In this instance, the last piece of information ouput could be the question “how many people are in the vehicle” and the user could use the repeat command to have the system ask the question again.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the voice recognition method as taught by Wei et al. in view of Jang et al. to include a keyword which causes the system to repeat itself as taught by Quinn et al. This would have been an obvious improvement to allow people to interact with the device in a hands-free manner (Quinn et al. Paragraph 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS DANIEL LOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Paras D Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
09/17/2026
