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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/23/25. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-12 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by machine translation of Tsuji (JP 2011014341A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Tsuji teaches an information processing method to be executed by a computer ([0019] “personal computer”), the information processing method comprising: acquiring schedule data (Fig. 9) that includes information about at least one planned action of a user ([0030]); and controlling an illumination environment of a space where the user is to perform a task ([0030]) according to whether the planned action of the user as indicated by the information included in the schedule data includes a task involving convergent thinking ([0024-0026] “paki-paki”; Fig. 1) or a task involving divergent thinking ([0019-0033] “ikiiki” brainstorming ideas while having fun; Figs. 1-12).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsuji teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling of the illumination environment includes: determining, based on the schedule data, whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking; controlling the illumination environment to switch to a first illumination environment that leads the user into a convergent thinking state in a first period corresponding to a planned action that includes the task involving convergent thinking; and controlling the illumination environment to switch to a second illumination environment that leads the user into a divergent thinking state in a second period corresponding to a planned action that includes the task involving divergent thinking ([0030], Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsuji teaches an information processing method to be executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising: acquiring schedule data that includes information about at least one planned action of a user; and controlling equipment (Fig. 11), which is disposed in a space where the user is to perform a task and which imparts a stimulus related to one or more of the five senses, according to whether the planned action of the user as indicated by the information included in the schedule data includes a task involving convergent thinking or a task involving divergent thinking ([0019-0033]).
Claim(s) 3-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji in view of Sadakiyo (JP 2010287398).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuji teaches the information processing method according to claim 2, the correspondence information indicating a correspondence relation between a name of the planned action and the task involving convergent thinking and a correspondence relation between the name of the planned action ([0030]) and the task involving divergent thinking, and in the determining of the task, the correspondence information and a planned action of the user included in the acquired schedule data are compared to determine whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking ([0024-0026] “paki-paki”; Fig. 1) or the task involving divergent thinking ([0019-0033] “ikiiki” brainstorming ideas while having fun; Figs. 1-12).
Tsuji does not teach correspondence information is stored in a memory.
Sadakiyo is in the filed of illumination control (abstract) and teaches correspondence information is stored in a memory (volatile memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsuji with memory as taught by Sadakiyo in order to have computer task instructions available to run during different process since the memory provide storage of such programs.
Regarding Claim 4, Tsuji teaches the information processing method according to claim 2 except wherein in the determining of the task, a name of the planned action included in the schedule data is inputted into a model that outputs, based on the name of the planned action, a determination result indicating whether the planned action includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking, thereby determining whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking.
Sadakiyo is in the field of illumination control (abstract) and teaches in the determining of the task ([0013-0020]; Fig. 2-4), a name of the planned action included in the schedule data is inputted into a model that outputs, based on the name of the planned action, a determination result indicating whether the planned action includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking, thereby determining whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsuji with task determination as taught by Sadakiyo in order to have computer task instructions available to run during different process since the memory provide storage of such programs.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsuji teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, except acquiring identification information for identifying the user, wherein the acquiring of the schedule data includes acquiring, based on the identification information, schedule data associated with the user.
Sadakiyo is in the field of illumination control (abstract) and teaches acquiring identification information for identifying the user, wherein the acquiring of the schedule data includes acquiring, based on the identification information, schedule data associated with the user ([0013-0020]; Fig. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsuji with task determination as taught by Sadakiyo in order to have computer task instructions available to run during different process since the memory provide storage of such programs.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tsuji and Sadakiyo teach the information processing method according to claim 4, wherein the model is created by being trained on a per-user basis using, as labeled training data, a dataset containing information about planned actions included in schedule data and information indicating whether tasks corresponding to the planned actions involve convergent thinking or divergent thinking ([0021-0027]; Fig. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsuji teaches a task determination method to be executed by a computer ([0029]) except the task determination method comprising: acquiring schedule data that includes information about at least one planned action of a user; inputting a name of the planned action included in the schedule data into a model that outputs, based on the name of the planned action, a determination result indicating whether the planned action includes a task involving convergent thinking or a task involving divergent thinking, thereby determining whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking; and outputting a determination result regarding the planned action.
Sadakiyo is in the field of illumination control (abstract) and teaches the task determination method comprising: acquiring schedule data that includes information about at least one planned action of a user ([0029]); inputting a name of the planned action included in the schedule data into a model (standard illuminance table structure; [0013]; Fig. 2) that outputs, based on the name of the planned action, a determination result indicating whether the planned action includes a task involving convergent thinking or a task involving divergent thinking ([0016]; Fig. 1), thereby determining whether the planned action of the user includes the task involving convergent thinking or the task involving divergent thinking; and outputting a determination result regarding the planned action ([0011-0030; Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsuji with task determination as taught by Sadakiyo in order to have computer task instructions available to run during different process since the memory provide storage of such programs.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji, Sadakiyo as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Nakagawa (JP 2010075312A).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Tsuji and Sadakiyo teach the information processing method according to claim 9, except the equipment is a display device that displays an image.
Nakagawa is in the field of illumination control (abstract) and teaches the equipment is a display device that displays an image (Fig. 2: 5 displays an image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsuji and Sadakiyo with the display device as taught by Nakagawa in order to display images since these images can help the passenger relax along with the illumination control.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Tsuji, Sadakiyo and Nakagawa teach the information processing method according to claim 10, wherein the display device is disposed between a front seat and a rear seat of a vehicle (Nakagawa Fig. 2: 5), and a display surface of the display device is located on the rear-seat side.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tsuji, Sadakiyo and Nakagawa teach the information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the equipment is a speaker that outputs sound (Nakagawa [background-art] “sound stimulation that promotes sleep”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights