DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Title
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: ACTION CONTROL SYSTEM AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS UTILIZING TEXT GENERATION MODEL BASED ON USER INFORMATION.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. It should not copy the claims. Further, some languages in the abstract are not consistent with claim languages, e.g., “prescribed learning field”, “sentence generation model”, etc. Corrections are required. See MPEP §608.01(b).
Claim interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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 or 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or 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 liked 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 limited 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the world “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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:
Claims 1-6 and 8 recite “a detection unit”. Examiner interprets it as “sensor unit 200” and “sensor module unit 210”(e.g., FIG. 2, [0024]);
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 recite “an output control unit”. Examiner interprets it as “action control unit 250” in association with “control target 252” including “display device 2521”, “speaker 2522”, “lamp 2523” and “motor 2524”, etc. (e.g., FIG. 2, [0024]); and
Claim 9 recites “an evaluation unit”. Examiner interprets it as “action determination unit 236” executed by, e.g., “processor”(e.g., [0115]).
Claims 1 and 8-9 recite “a text generation model”. Examiner interprets it as “a text generation model (also referred to as an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chat engine) with an emotion engine” (e.g., [0012]), which is also “disclosed in Japanese Patent No. 2018-081444 A, for example, and therefore, a detailed description thereof will be omitted” ([0013]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2021/0383793 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0049328 A1).
As to claim 1, Saito teaches an action control system (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “information presentation device 10”) comprising:
a detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) that detects a learning status of a user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “a situation of the identified user (for example, whether or not the user is watching the display 26, whether or not the user understands character displaying and voice output, or the like)”) in a predetermined field of study (Saito, e.g., FIG. 4, [0025], “foreign language”); and
an output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) that causes an electronic device (Saito, FIG. 7, [0082], e.g., “the presentation processing unit 11 accesses an information terminal (for example, a smart phone, a personal computer, etc.) used by the user”) to output information corresponding to the learning status to the user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “obtains a level of the user from the user DB 35, and determines a presentation method such as that shown in the examples in FIGS. 1 to 6 according to the level and situation of the user”).
Saito does not explicitly teach that the electronic device includes “a text generation model”.
However, Choi teaches the concept that the electronic device includes “a text generation model (Choi, [0050],e.g., “the electronic device 100 may use the artificial intelligence agent for generating a natural language as a response to user speech”; FIG. 4, [0067], “language model 410” and “multilingual response 430”; [0142], “the electronic device may use the artificial intelligence model trained on n-number of slots to obtain a sentence corresponding to n+1-number of slots”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “information presentation device 10” taught by Saito to be further integrated with the “artificial intelligence agent”, as taught by Choi, in order to provide “an electronic device capable of generating a natural language including a response to user input by inputting input data including a plurality of slots to one of the trained artificial intelligence models to obtain a natural language generation template and a natural language in order to provide an accurate response to various cases” (Choi, [0010]).
As to claim 2, Saito teaches the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) identifies the field of study (Saito, e.g., FIG. 4, [0025], “foreign language”) corresponding to an age of the user and detects the learning status in the identified field of study (Saito, FIG. 7, [0091], “The user analysis unit 34 estimates a level (including the age, knowledge level, and language ability of the user) of each user on the basis of input from the user speech processing unit 32 and the user history processing unit 33, and registers the level in the user DB 35”).
As to claim 3, Saito teaches the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) detects a learning level in the field of study (Saito, FIG. 7, [0091], “The user analysis unit 34 estimates a level (including the age, knowledge level, and language ability of the user) of each user on the basis of input from the user speech processing unit 32 and the user history processing unit 33, and registers the level in the user DB 35”), and the output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) changes a method of outputting the information in accordance with the learning level (Saito, e.g., FIG. 4, [0025], “words of presentation information are converted into a foreign language according to a user's learning level”; FIG. 9, [0103], “obtain level of user S13” → “determine presentation method S14”; ).
As to claim 4, Saito teaches the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) detects interest of the user in an unfamiliar field of study (Saito, e.g., FIGS. 5-6, [0026-0027], “information to be added to presentation information is changed according to a user's interest”), and the output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) causes the electronic device to output information on the field of study of interest (Saito, e.g., FIG. 6, [0074], “A case where a user is detected, the user is identified as mamma, a level thereof is determined, and moreover, an interest region (culture) of the user (mamma) is searched for from the user DB. In this case, for the user (mamma), “Toda's News, AA country's president visits Japan” is displayed with characters as presentation information”).
As to claim 5, Saito teaches the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) detects a learning status of a field of study related to sensitivity of the user (Saito, FIG. 10, [0108], e.g., “a case where two users (the papa and the child) are detected and recognized, levels thereof are determined, and states of the users (the papa is not watching the display (during driving), and the child is watching the display) are further determined”), and the output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) causes the electronic device to output information on the field of study related to the sensitivity (Saito, FIG. 10, [0109], e.g., “To the user (papa) who is driving and therefore cannot watch the display, a voice synthesized corresponding to presentation information as the car navigation device “There is the XX castle 500 m ahead in the left direction” is output. Meanwhile, to the user (Yuta) who is watching the display, “After a little more driving, a castle can be seen on the left side”, into which the presentation information as the car navigation device “There is the XX castle 500 m ahead in the left direction” has been converted as appropriate according to the level of the user, is displayed with characters”).
As to claim 8, Saito in view of Choi teaches an action control system (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “information presentation device 10”) comprising:
a detection unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “user state recognition sensor 22”) that detects an acquisition status of the user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0083], e.g., “a situation of the identified user (for example, whether or not the user is watching the display 26, whether or not the user understands character displaying and voice output, or the like)”) with respect to a predetermined language (Saito, e.g., FIG. 4, [0025], “foreign language”); and
an output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) that causes an electronic device (Saito, FIG. 7, [0082], e.g., “the presentation processing unit 11 accesses an information terminal (for example, a smart phone, a personal computer, etc.) used by the user”) including a text generation model (Choi, [0050],e.g., “the electronic device 100 may use the artificial intelligence agent for generating a natural language as a response to user speech”; FIG. 4, [0067], “language model 410” and “multilingual response 430”; [0142], “the electronic device may use the artificial intelligence model trained on n-number of slots to obtain a sentence corresponding to n+1-number of slots”) to output information corresponding to the acquisition status to the user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “obtains a level of the user from the user DB 35, and determines a presentation method such as that shown in the examples in FIGS. 1 to 6 according to the level and situation of the user”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 9, Saito in view of Choi teaches an action control system (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “information presentation device 10”) comprising:
an evaluation unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “user analysis unit 34”) that evaluates a state of a user based on user information on the user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “estimates a level (including the age, knowledge level, and language ability of the user) of each user on the basis of input from the user speech processing unit 32 and the user history processing unit 33, and registers the level in the user DB 35”); and
an output control unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “output control unit 24”) that causes an electronic device (Saito, FIG. 7, [0082], e.g., “the presentation processing unit 11 accesses an information terminal (for example, a smart phone, a personal computer, etc.) used by the user”) including a text generation model (Choi, [0050],e.g., “the electronic device 100 may use the artificial intelligence agent for generating a natural language as a response to user speech”; FIG. 4, [0067], “language model 410” and “multilingual response 430”; [0142], “the electronic device may use the artificial intelligence model trained on n-number of slots to obtain a sentence corresponding to n+1-number of slots”) to output proposal information on a proposal for the state of the user (Saito, FIG. 7, [0103], “obtains a level of the user from the user DB 35, and determines a presentation method such as that shown in the examples in FIGS. 1 to 6 according to the level and situation of the user”) to a predetermined output destination (Saito, FIG. 7, [0088], e.g., “ display 26” or “speaker 27”) in accordance with the evaluation (Saito, FIG. 7, [0088], “corresponding to the presentation information that has been converted as appropriate according to the user's level”) made by the evaluation unit (Saito, FIG. 7, [0080], “user analysis unit 34”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2021/0383793 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0049328 A1) and Liu et al. (US 2017/0046970 A1).
As to claim 6, Saito in view of Choi does not explicitly teach the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a learning status for a test coverage of the user who takes a test, and the output control unit causes the electronic device to output information corresponding to the learning status in the test coverage.
However, Liu teaches the concept that the detection unit detects a learning status for a test coverage of the user who takes a test, and the output control unit causes the electronic device to output information corresponding to the learning status in the test coverage (Liu, e.g., FIG. 3, [0044], “At block 304, a literacy level based on historical data is determined for the user. In various embodiments, determining the literacy level for the user can include implementing natural language processing as well as the Flesch/Flesch-Kincaid readability tests or similar literacy level assessment methods known to those skilled in the art to analyze the historical data collected at block 302”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “user analysis unit 34” integrated with the “artificial intelligence agent” taught by Saito in view of Choi to further consider, e.g., the “Flesch/Flesch-Kincaid readability tests or similar literacy level assessment” coverage, as taught by Liu, in order to provide “dynamic content processing, and more particular aspects relate to delivering digital content based on literacy levels” (Liu, [0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2021/0383793 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0049328 A1) and Hergenroeder (US 2018/0277002 A1).
As to claim 7, Saito in view of Choi does not explicitly teach the action control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device is either mounted on a stuffed toy or connected, by a wireless or wired link, to a control target device mounted on the stuffed toy.
However, Hergenroeder teaches the concept that the electronic device is either mounted on a stuffed toy or connected, by a wireless or wired link, to a control target device mounted on the stuffed toy (Hergenroeder, [0026], “the computer can be incorporated into devices familiar to a child, such as a stuffed toy or robot”; [0109], “The physical form of the method and apparatus of the present invention may also vary, and include common items such as a stuffed animal, a ‘robot,’ or simply an iPad device with an attachable, movable pointing device. In some implementations the disclosure contains a plastic and/or metal object and/or plastic or metal or wood figure and/or plastic or fabric or other material stuffed toy”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “user analysis unit 34” integrated with the “artificial intelligence agent” taught by Saito in view of Choi to be further implemented as the smart “stuffed toy”, as taught by Hergenroeder, in order to provide that “the present invention's gesture and responsiveness make it an ideal tool for researchers and parents to work together to help children learn effectively in early childhood” (Hergenroeder, [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Moon et al. (US 2021/0039251 A1) teaches the concept of a social robot with AI emotion engine (e.g., FIG. 2).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Aug. 20, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights