Ex Parte Filev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2017

12110712 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/110,712 04/28/2008 Dimitar Petrov Filev 81171437 5979
28395 7590 04/12/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIMITAR PETROV FILEV, OLEG YURIEVITCH GUSIKHIN,
ERICA KLAMPFL, YIFAN CHON, FAZAL URRAHMAN SYED,
PERRY MACNEILLE, MARK SCHUNDER, THOMAS GIULI, and
BASAVARAJ TONSHAL
Appeal 2014-005804
Application 12/110,712
Technology Center 3600
Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dimitar Petrov Filev et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 9-14.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Although the Claims Appendix in the Appeal Brief lists claims 15, 17, 18,
and 21, those claims were in the group not elected in response to the
Examiner’s restriction requirement. See Restriction Requirement (8/31/11);
Response to Restriction Requirement (9/30/11).
Appeal 2014-005804
Application 12/110,712
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention pertains to an avatar emotively
conveying information to a user of a vehicle where the avatar may receive
and respond to a query from the user regarding the simulated emotional state
expressed by the avatar. Spec. 1:24—32, 3:23—29. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An emotive advisory system for an occupant of an
automotive vehicle, the system comprising:
a computer configured to
receive input indicative of an operating state of the
vehicle and input indicative of an emotional state of the
occupant,
generate data representing an avatar having an
appearance and data representing a spoken statement for
the avatar having at least one speech characteristic, the
appearance and the at least one speech characteristic
(i) depending on at least one of the operating state of the
vehicle and the emotional state of the occupant and (ii)
conveying a simulated emotional state of the avatar to the
occupant to prompt the occupant to pose a query regarding
a cause of the avatar's simulated emotional state,
receive input indicative of a query from the
occupant regarding the avatar’s simulated emotional state,
in response to the query, generate data representing
another spoken statement for the avatar and including
information about the cause of the avatar’s simulated
emotional state, and
output the data representing the avatar for visual
display and the data representing the statements for the
avatar for audio play.
2
Appeal 2014-005804
Application 12/110,712
THE REJECTION
Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and
9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kubota
(US 6,249,720 Bl, iss. June 19, 2001) and Bennett (US 2006/0122834 Al,
pub. June 8, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, with emphasis added, a computer
configured to, inter alia: 1) generate data “conveying a simulated emotional
state of the avatar to the occupant to prompt the occupant to pose a query
regarding a cause of the avatar's simulated emotional state f 2) receive
input indicative of such a query from the occupant, and 3) generate data, in
response to the query, where the data includes “information about the cause
of the avatar’s simulated emotional state.’ '’ Independent claim 9 contains
similar recitations regarding a query as to the cause of the avatar’s simulated
emotional state.
The Examiner finds that Kubota, the primary reference, “does not
explicitly disclose . . . receiving an input indicative of a query from the
occupant[;] Bennett however teaches . . . receiving [queries] from a user
and ... the agent responding to the query posed by the user.” Final Act. 4
(citing Bennett 141).
Appellants argue that Bennett describes general interactions between
an avatar and the user but not interactions specifically pertaining to a cause
of the avatar’s simulated emotional state. App. Br. 4. In particular,
Appellants assert “Bennett does not suggest the use of avatar simulated
emotional state as a way to invite user inquiries regarding the cause of the
3
Appeal 2014-005804
Application 12/110,712
simulated emotional state, or the ability to provide data in response to such
queries explaining the cause of the simulated emotional state.” Id.
In making findings regarding each reference’s teachings and in
articulating a reason to combine those teachings, the Examiner recites only
portions of the claim language, omitting phrases pertaining to the avatar’s
simulated emotional state. Final Act. 4. For example, the Examiner’s omits
the emphasized portions of the following limitation: “conveying a simulated
emotional state of the avatar to the occupant to prompt the occupant to pose
a query regarding a cause of the avatar's simulated emotional state.’ '’ Id.
Similarly, in discussing how Bennett purportedly fills the gap in Kubota, the
Examiner refers to a query from the occupant but fails to acknowledge the
recitation of “regarding the avatar’s simulated emotional state.” Id.
We acknowledge that the Examiner mentions claim construction
canons regarding, for example, statements of intended use. See id. at 9. The
Examiner, however, does not explain clearly how those canons are being
applied to the claim language at issue in this appeal. For example, the
Examiner has not explained how canons regarding intended use and
“wherein” clauses relate to the “wherein” clause of claim 9, which limits the
programming of the claimed “computer” to one “configured to receive a
query . . . and generate data . . . .” App. Br., Claims Appendix 2. We also
acknowledge that, in the Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellants’
arguments with findings that human-like interactions could involve any type
of question including those directed to the emotional state of the avatar. See
Ans. 5—6. The Examiner, however, does not address adequately the claimed
subject matter as a whole or explain why that subject matter would have
been obvious.
4
Appeal 2014-005804
Application 12/110,712
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as obvious over Kubota and Bennett.
We similarly cannot sustain the rejection of the remaining claims on appeal,
which depend from either claim 1 or claim 9.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—7, and 9—14 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5