www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/968,234
`
`08/07/2020
`
`Kiyonori KIDO
`
`NIIP17PUSO1
`
`7A85
`
`MARKD. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`ALBERTALLI, BRIAN LOUIS
`
`2656
`
`07/15/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerotto.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-12 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`C} Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`“If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)C2 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)C) The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)(] accepted or b)(_) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`cc) None ofthe:
`b)J Some**
`a)) All
`1.4 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220629
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/968,234
`KIDO etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`BRIAN L ALBERTALLI
`2656
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)C Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)C) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\() Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim 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-AlA 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-AlA 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;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 3
`
`(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-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 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-AlIA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or moreclaim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but
`
`are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 4
`
`without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholderis not
`
`precededby a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first obtaining unit configuredto...”
`
`and “a second obtaining unit configured to...” in claim 1.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`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-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`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)(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 effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
`
`Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang
`
`(U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0299670).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 5
`
`In regard to claim 1, Chang discloses a control information obtaining system (Fig. 1, 100),
`
`comprising:
`
`a first obtaining unit configured to obtain speech control information from a speech control
`
`system that outputs the speech control information for controlling a device based on a speech obtained
`
`by a speech obtaining unit (a device receives data associated with a spoken command obtained at a
`
`remote control device, paragraphs [0047-0049]); and
`
`a second obtaining unit configured to obtain related information relevant to the speech
`
`obtaining unit from the speech control system (the device also receives user data related to the spoken
`
`command, paragraphs [0047-0049]).
`
`In regard to claim 2, Chang discloses the second obtaining unit is configured to obtain the
`
`related information via an obtaining route identical to an obtaining route taken by the first obtaining
`
`unit for obtaining the speech control information (the user data and data associated with the spoken
`
`command areboth received from a remote device, paragraphs [0047-0049]).
`
`In regard to claim 3, Chang discloses the second obtaining unit is configured to obtain the
`
`related information via an obtaining route different from an obtaining route taken by the first obtaining
`
`unit for obtaining the speech control information (alternatively, the device receives an instruction
`
`corresponding to the spoken command from a network speech recognition engine while receiving the
`
`user data from the remote control device, paragraphs [0047-0049]).
`
`In regard to claim 4, Chang discloses the second obtaining unit is configured to obtain the
`
`related information relevant to the speech obtaining unit provided in a space in which a person is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 6
`
`estimated to be present (see Fig. 1, the user data is received from the remote control device 110 in local
`
`communication with device 180, paragraphs [0018-0019] and [0047]).
`
`In regard to claim 5, Chang discloses an output unit configured to output, based on the speech
`
`control information obtained and the related information obtained, control information for controlling a
`
`target device to be controlled (the device forwards the command instruction to the appropriate device,
`
`paragraph [0049]).
`
`In regard to claim 10, Chang discloses the related information obtained indicates a speaker of
`
`the speech obtained by the speech obtaining unit (user identification, paragraph [0042)).
`
`In regard to claim 11, Chang discloses a control information obtaining method, comprising:
`
`obtaining speech control information from a speech control system that outputs the speech
`
`control information for controlling a device based on a speech obtained by a speech obtaining unit (a
`
`device receives data associated with a spoken command obtained at a remotecontrol device,
`
`paragraphs [0047-0049]); and
`
`obtaining related information relevant to the speech obtaining unit from the speech control
`
`system (the device also receives user data related to the spoken command, paragraphs [0047 -0049]).
`
`In regard to claim 12, Chang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for
`
`use ina computer, the recording medium having a computer program recorded thereon for causing a
`
`computer to execute the control information obtaining method according to claim 11 (paragraph
`
`[0053]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 7
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of
`
`Weider et al. (WIPO International Pub. No. 2007/027546, hereinafter “Weider’”).
`
`In regard to claim 6, Chang doesnot disclose the output unit is configured to output, based on
`
`the related information obtained, the control information for performing second control on the target
`
`device to be controlled, the second control being different from first control instructed to be performed
`
`in the speech control information.
`
`Weider discloses a control information obtaining system comprising an output unit, wherein the
`
`output unit is configured to output, based on the related information obtained, the control information
`
`for performing second control on the target device to be controlled, the second control being different
`
`from first control instructed to be performed in the speech control information (a command determined
`
`from input speech is altered to a second command using variable substitution and/or inference of
`
`missing values, where the variable substitution and inference depends on related information such asa
`
`user profile, command history, state of the system, etc., paragraph [0148]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effectivefiling date of
`
`the claimed invention to output a second control based on the related information obtained, because by
`
`selecting the second control based on the related information (such as the identify of the user), the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 8
`
`second command would be morelikely to please the user, as suggested by Weider (paragraphs [027]
`
`and [043]).
`
`In regard to claim 7, Chang doesnotdisclose the output unit is configured to output the control
`
`information for performing the second control on the target device to be controlled.
`
`Weider discloses the output unit is configured to:
`
`output the control information for performing the first control on the target device to be
`
`controlled when the related information obtained satisfies a predetermined requirement (related
`
`information regarding the state of the system and/or measurements are evaluated to determine
`
`whetherthe first command can be executed and if so, the command is output, paragraphs [027], [043],
`
`and [0148]); and
`
`output the control information for performing the second control on the target device to be
`
`controlled when the related information obtained does notsatisfy the predetermined requirement(if
`
`the command cannot be executed, a substitute commandis generated, paragraphs [027], [043], and
`
`[0148]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effectivefiling date of
`
`the claimed invention to output the first control on the target device if the related information satisfied
`
`a predetermined requirement, and to output the second control on the target device if the related
`
`information did not satisfy the predetermined requirement, because this would ensure the output
`
`command could be safely executed, as suggested by Weider (paragraphs [027], [043], and [0148]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 9
`
`Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of
`
`Kojima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0287411, hereinafter “Kojima”).
`
`In regard to claim 8, Chang doesnot disclose the related information obtained is identification
`
`information of the speech obtaining unit.
`
`Kojima discloses a control information obtaining system comprising an obtaining unit configured
`
`to obtain related information relevant to a speech obtaining unit, wherein the related information
`
`obtainedis identification information of the speech obtaining unit (Fig. 1, an integrated control device 3
`
`receives identification information indicating the device 2 that obtained an input speech command,
`
`paragraph [0069]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to include identification information of the speech obtaining unit as the related
`
`information, because it would allow the user to issue a speech command without requiring the device
`
`name to be spoken, as taught by Kojima (paragraph [0030]).
`
`In regard to claim 9, Chang doesnot disclose the related information obtained indicates a
`
`position of the speech obtaining unit.
`
`Kojima discloses a control information obtaining system comprising an obtaining unit configured
`
`to obtain related information relevant to a speech obtaining unit, wherein the related information
`
`obtained indicates a position of the speech obtaining unit (an integrated control device 3 receives
`
`movementinformation indicating the position of device 2, paragraphs [0129-0131]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to include information indicating a position of the speech obtaining unit, because
`
`it would reduce the complexity for the user, as taught by Kojima (paragraphs [0137-0138]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 10
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`Conclusion
`
`disclosure.
`
`Suyama,Giorgi et al., Li et al., Aiken et al., Kothari et al., Bargetzi et al., Cubukcu, Lin et al.,
`
`Kishida, Kim et al., Kim et al., Arling et al., Huang et al., Knode et al., Roe et al., Lu et al., Yokoya et al.,
`
`Mozeret al., Cook, and Luchaup disclose additional control command obtaining systems.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to BRIAN LOUIS ALBERTALLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7616. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9AM-3PM (Part time).
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. The fax phone numberfor the organization wherethis
`
`application or proceedingis 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 Centeris 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 aboutfiling in DOCX format. For additional
`
`questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/968,234
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 11
`
`assistance from a USPTO CustomerService Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or
`
`571-272-1000.
`
`BLA 7/11/22
`
`/BRIAN L ALBERTALLI/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
`
`