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 .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 09/02/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 21-28 and 30-33 are pending in the case.
No further claims have been cancelled or added.
Claims 1, 8 and 21 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites “further comprising:
storing a user interface format corresponding to the selected user interface and an association between the user interface format and the user device;
receiving third information indicative of another audio input received at the user device that is configured to control the at least one other device;
selecting the stored user interface format based on the association between the stored user interface format and the user device; and
causing output of the stored user interface format on the at least one other device.”
The only paragraph that discusses storing user interface formats is paragraph [0033], which recites:
“The computing device may be configured to store one or more user interface formats for interacting with the user device. For example, the computing device may store a first type of user interface for navigating using voice commands and second type of user interface for navigating using one or more buttons. The stored user interfaces may have any number of characteristics, such as language, text size, and design schemes.”
According to paragraph [0033], multiple types (formats) of user interfaces are stored, a first type for navigating using voice commands and a second type for navigating using buttons. This seems to indicate that the computing device has a plurality of user interface formats stored for interacting with the user device. There is no teaching that the storing corresponds to a selected user interface (i.e. storing the format after the selection is made) and then selecting the stored user interface format in response to receiving a subsequent audio input. Accordingly, claim 2 comprises new subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 12, 25, 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2010/0257475 A1, published 10/07/2010, hereinafter “Smith”) in view of Liston et al. (US 2018/0189076 A1, effectively filed on 09/13/2017, hereinafter “Liston”).
Independent Claim 1:
Smith discloses a method comprising:
receiving first information indicative of an audio input received at a user device that is configured to control at least one other device (The system can receive a voice command from a first input device, Smith: Fig. 5, [0052]. The input device can be a microphone, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025]. The voice commands controls the graphical user interface generated on the display (other device), Smith: ¶ [0053].);
receiving second information indicating whether the user device is either a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice or a device that is configured to be operated using one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device (Examiner considers this limitation to provide alternatives to what the second information indicates. As such, only one of the alternatives need to be taught by Smith (See MPEP § 2131 “When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will address both alternatives as if they were each required. The interface can be adapted based on the type of input device used, Smith: ¶ [0053]-[0055]. As presented above, Smith indicates that the input type can be a voice command and the input device can be a microphone or the input device can be a remote controller with buttons, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025], [0052]-[0056]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.);
selecting, based on the second information, a user interface, from a plurality of user interfaces, for output on the at least one other device, wherein a first one of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to be navigated using one or more voice commands when a user device is a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice, and a second one of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to be navigated using one or more buttons when a user device is a device that is configured to be operated using one or more buttons on the user device (This limitation comprises contingent limitations in a method claim and only one of said limitations requires to be performed, as such, under broadest reasonable interpretation the prior art only needs to teach one of the limitations (See MPEP § 2111.04(II). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will address both contingent limitations as if they were each required. Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used and that a user interface configured for a remote control with buttons can be selected when the remote control input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]); and
causing output of the selected user interface on the at least one other device (The selected user interface is outputted onto the display (at least one other device), Smith: Figs. 4 and 5, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]. The display can be a single display, Smith: ¶ [0043]-[0044].).
Smith does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons.
However, Liston teaches a method wherein the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons (Liston: ¶ [0098], [0203]-[0205], [0225], [0290], [0302]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith wherein the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons, as taught by Liston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for adapting the user interface to various types of remote controllers (Liston: Fig. 4, ¶ [0006], [0302].).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith further discloses a method wherein the second information indicates that the user device is a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice, and wherein the selecting the user interface, from a plurality of user interfaces, for output on the at least one other device comprises selecting the first one of the plurality of user interfaces that is configured to be navigated using one or more voice commands (Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith further teaches a method wherein the second information indicates that the user device is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device and wherein selecting the user interface, from a plurality of user interfaces, for output on the at least one other device comprises selecting the second one of the plurality of user interfaces that is configured to be navigated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons (Liston: Figs. 13 and 14, ¶ [0203]-[0205], [0302]).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith does not appear to explicitly teach a method wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider.
However, Liston teaches a method wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider (The user can provide an audio input to open the Netflix application, Liston: ¶ [0302]. Although it is not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the Netflix application provides the user with access to a list of content offered by Netflix (service provider).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider, as taught by Liston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing straight forward commands for accessing a list of content (Liston: ¶ [0302]; Smith: ¶ [0021].).
Independent Claim 8:
Smith discloses a method comprising:
receiving first information indicative of an audio input received at a user device that is configured to control at least one other device (The system can receive a voice command from a first input device, Smith: Fig. 5, [0052]. The input device can be a microphone, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025]. The voice commands controls the graphical user interface generated on the display (other device), Smith: ¶ [0053].);
receiving an indication of the user device (The interface can be adapted based on the type of input device used, Smith: ¶ [0053]-[0055]. As presented above, Smith indicates that the input type can be a voice command and the input device can be a microphone, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025], [0052]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.);
determining, based on the indication, whether the user device is either a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice and that does not include one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device or a device that is configured to be operated using one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device (Examiner considers this limitation to provide alternatives to what the user device is. As such, only one of the alternatives need to be taught by Smith (See MPEP § 2131 “When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will address both alternatives as if they were each required. The interface can be adapted based on the type of input device used, Smith: ¶ [0053]-[0055]. As presented above, Smith indicates that the input type can be a voice command and the input device can be a microphone (does not include one or more buttons) and the input device can be a remote controller with buttons, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025], [0052]-[0057]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.); and
in response to determining that the user device is a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice and that does not include one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device, causing output of a first type of user interface that is configured to be navigated using one or more voice commands on the at least one other device (This limitation and the following one are contingent limitations in a method claim and only one of said limitations requires to be performed, as such, under broadest reasonable interpretation the prior art only needs to teach one of the limitations (See MPEP § 2111.04(II)). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will address both limitations as if each contingent limitation were required. Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used and that a user interface configured for a remote control with buttons can be selected when the remote control input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]); or
in response to determining that the user device is configured to be operated using one or more buttons, causing output of a second type of user interface that is configured to be navigated using one or more buttons on the user device (Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used and that a user interface configured for a remote control with buttons can be selected when the remote control input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]).
Smith does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the indication is part of received metadata;
wherein the user device is configured to be operated by a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device and wherein the second type of user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons on the user device.
However, Liston teaches a method wherein:
the indication is part of received metadata (Information (metadata) can be retrieved that is used to determine the functionality of the remote controller, Liston: ¶ [0203]. Examiner considers data that gives information about an item to be metadata.);
wherein the user device is configured to be operated by a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device and wherein the second type of user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons on the user device (Liston: ¶ [0098], [0203]-[0205], [0225], [0290], [0302]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith wherein:
the indication is part of received metadata;
wherein the user device is configured to be operated by a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device and wherein the second type of user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons on the user device, as taught by Liston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for adapting the user interface to various types of remote controllers (Liston: Fig. 4, ¶ [0006], [0302].).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith does not appear to explicitly teach a method wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider.
However, Liston teaches a method wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider (The user can provide an audio input to open the Netflix application, Liston: ¶ [0302]. Although it is not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the Netflix application provides the user with access to a list of content offered by Netflix (service provider).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith wherein the audio input is a voice command for accessing a list of content offered by a service provider, as taught by Liston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing straight forward commands for accessing a list of content (Liston: ¶ [0302]; Smith: ¶ [0021].).
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston teaches a method wherein each of the plurality of user interfaces is associated with one or more recognized user devices (There is a user interface for a microphone that receives voice input and there is a user interface for a remote controller that can receive user input, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0052]-[0056]; Liston: Fig. 4, ¶ [0203], [0302].).
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston teaches a method wherein:
determining whether the user device is either the hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice and that does not include one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device or a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device comprises determining that the user device is the hands free device (Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056].); and
causing output of the first type of user interface on that at least one other device in response to determining that the user device is the hands free device (Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056].).
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston teaches a method wherein:
determining whether the user device is either the hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice and that does not include one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device or a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons for causing control of at least one other device comprises determining that the user device is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons (Liston: Figs. 13 and 14, ¶ [0203]-[0205], [0302]); and
causing output of the second type of user interface on that at least one other device in response to determining that the user device is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons (Liston: Figs. 13 and 14, ¶ [0203]-[0205], [0302]).
Claim(s) 5, 21-23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli et al. (US 2011/0119637 A1, published 05/19/2011, hereinafter “Tuli).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston further teaches a method wherein the second information corresponds to the capabilities of the input device (The system determines the type of interface based on the capabilities of the input device (e.g. number of buttons, voice command capability, gesture recognition, etc...), Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]; Liston: ¶ [0203]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.).
Smith does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier.
However, Tuli teaches a method wherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith sswherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier, as taught by Tuli.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a more effective means for determining the capabilities of the user equipment (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Independent Claim 21:
receiving first information indicative of an audio input received at a user device that is configured to control at least one other device (The system can receive a voice command from a first input device, Smith: Fig. 5, [0052]. The input device can be a microphone, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025]. The voice commands controls the graphical user interface generated on the display (other device), Smith: ¶ [0053].);
receiving an indication and determining, based on the indication, whether or not the user device is a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice (The interface can be adapted based on the type of input device used, Smith: ¶ [0053]-[0055]. As presented above, Smith indicates that the input type can be a voice command and the input device can be a microphone and the input device can be a remote controller with buttons, Smith: ¶ [0013], [0025], [0052]-[0056]. Although it is not explicitly stated, Smith implies that the system is provided with some sort of indication of the type of input device being used or else the system could not accurately choose the user interface that corresponds to the type of input device that provided the input.);
selecting, based on determining whether or not the user device is a hands free device, a user interface from a plurality of user interfaces associated with a plurality of user devices configured to receive inputs for output on at least one other device, wherein a first one of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to be navigated using one or more voice commands when a user device is a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice, and a second one of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to be navigated using one or more buttons when a user device is a device that is configured to be operated using one or more buttons on the user device (This limitation comprises contingent limitations in a method claim and only one of said limitations requires to be performed, as such, under broadest reasonable interpretation the prior art only needs to teach one of the limitations (See MPEP § 2111.04(II). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will address both contingent limitations as if they were each required. Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used and that a user interface configured for a remote control with buttons can be selected when the remote control input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]); and
causing output of the selected user interface on the at least one other device (The selected user interface is outputted onto the display (at least one other device), Smith: Figs. 4 and 5, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]. The display can be a single display, Smith: ¶ [0043]-[0044].).
Smith does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the indication is a device identifier;
the plurality of user devices are configured to receive audio inputs; and
the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons when the user device is a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the user device.
However, Liston teaches a method the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons when the user device is a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the user device (Liston: ¶ [0098], [0203]-[0205], [0225], [0290], [0302]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith the second user interface is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons when the user device is a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the user device, as taught by Liston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for adapting the user interface to various types of remote controllers (Liston: Fig. 4, ¶ [0006], [0302].).
In combination, Smith in view of Liston teaches a method wherein the plurality of user devices are configured to receive audio inputs (A first input device can be a microphone and the second input device can be a remote control with buttons and voice input capabilities, Smith: Fig. 5, [0013], [0025], [0052]-[0056]; Liston: Figs. 13 and 14, ¶ [0203]-[0205], [0302]).
Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the indication is a device identifier.
However, Tuli teaches a method wherein the indication is a device identifier (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein the indication is a device identifier, as taught by Tuli.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a more effective means for determining the capabilities of the user equipment (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli teaches a method wherein the selecting the user interface comprises selecting, based on determining that the user device is a hands free device that is configured to be navigated using one or more voice commands (Smith teaches that a user interface configured for voice command can be selected when a voice command input device is being used, Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056].)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli teaches a method wherein selecting the user interface comprises selecting, based on determining that the user device is not a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice, the second one of the plurality of user interfaces that is configured to be navigated using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons (Liston: Figs. 13 and 14, ¶ [0203]-[0205], [0302]).
Claim 31:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston further teaches a method wherein the indication comprises device capabilities (Liston: ¶ [0203].).
Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier.
However, Tuli teaches a method wherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein the device capabilities are determined via a device identifier, as taught by Tuli.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a more effective means for determining the capabilities of the user equipment (Tuli: ¶ [0057].).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 10 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Park et al. (US 8,738,925 B1, issued on 05/27/2014, hereinafter “Park”).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein receiving the second information indicating whether the user device is either a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice or a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device.
However, Park teaches a method wherein receiving an indication of whether the user device is a first type of device or a second type of device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted (The type of device is determined based on the wireless protocol the device communicates with, Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein receiving an indication of whether the user device is a first type of device or a second type of device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted, as taught by Park.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method of Smith in view of Liston by providing greater flexibility in determining the type of device (Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
In implementing the device type determination feature of Park in to the invention of Smith in view of Liston, the identification of the type of device would include identification of a hands free device and a device comprising one or more buttons because the hands free device and the device comprising one or more buttons are the types of wireless devices that are identified in the invention of Smith in view of Liston. Accordingly, in combination, Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Park teaches a method wherein receiving the second information indicating whether the user device is either a hands free device that is configured to be operated by human voice or a device that is configured to be operated using a combination of human voice and one or more buttons on the device for causing control of the at least one other device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device.
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein receiving the metadata comprising the indication of the user device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device.
However, Park teaches a method wherein receiving the metadata comprising the indication of whether the user device is a first type of device or a second type of device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted (The type of device is determined based on the wireless protocol the device communicates with, Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein receiving an indication of whether the user device is a first type of device or a second type of device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted, as taught by Park.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method of Smith in view of Liston by providing greater flexibility in determining the type of device (Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
In implementing the device type determination feature of Park in to the invention of Smith in view of Liston, the identification of the type of device would include identification of a hands free device and a device comprising one or more buttons because the hands free device and the device comprising one or more buttons are the types of wireless devices that are identified in the invention of Smith in view of Liston. Accordingly, in combination, Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Park teaches a method wherein receiving the metadata comprising the indication of the user device comprises receiving an indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Park further teaches a method wherein receiving the indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device comprises receiving at least one of a device identifier or an indication of how the first information were transmitted by the user device comprises determining whether the second information was received over a Wi-Fi network or via a RF signal (Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Park does not appear to teach a method wherein the indication of how the first information was transmitted by the user device comprises an indication of whether the first information was received over a Wi-Fi network or via a RF signal (The type of device is determined based on the wireless protocol the device communicates with, Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Claim(s) 14 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Vassigh et al. (US 2019/0018635 A1, published 07/11/2017, hereinafter “Vassigh”).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the hands free device is configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger.
However, Vassigh teaches a method wherein the hands free device is configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger (The audio remote control device 122 (hands free device) is configured to receive voice commands after receiving a trigger word, Vassigh: ¶ [0036]. The only input interface described for the audio remote control device 122 is an array of microphones, Vassigh: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0031], [0037]-[0039].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein the hands free device is configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger, as taught by Vassigh.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective audio remote control device that can better distinguish audio data to determine when a user intends to issue a voice command (Vassigh: ¶ [0036]).
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston further teaches a method wherein the received second information further indicates that the user device is a hands free device and provides functionality information regarding the hands free device (The system determines the type of interface based on the capabilities of the input device (e.g. number of buttons, voice command capability, gesture recognition, etc...), Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]; Liston: ¶ [0203]-[0204]. The capabilities of the input device are determined, Liston: ¶ [0203]-[0204].).
Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the functionality of the user device comprises the hands free device being configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger, wherein the trigger is configured to serve as an instruction to cause execution of the voice command or to cause execution of an operation associated with the voice command.
However, Vassigh teaches a method wherein the functionality of the user device comprises the hands free device being configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger, wherein the trigger is configured to serve as an instruction to cause execution of the voice command or to cause execution of an operation associated with the voice command (The audio remote control device 122 (hands free device) is configured to receive voice commands after receiving a trigger word, Vassigh: ¶ [0036]. The only input interface described for the audio remote control device 122 is an array of microphones, Vassigh: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0031], [0037]-[0039].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein the functionality of the user device comprises the hands free device being configured to receive a trigger and a voice command following the trigger, wherein the trigger is configured to serve as an instruction to cause execution of the voice command or to cause execution of an operation associated with the voice command, as taught by Vassigh.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective audio remote control device that can better distinguish audio data to determine when a user intends to issue a voice command (Vassigh: ¶ [0036]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liston, further in view of Tuli and further in view of Park.
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli does not appear to teach a method wherein receiving the device identifier comprises receiving an indication of whether the first information was received over a Wi- Fi network or via a RF signal.
However, Park teaches a method wherein receiving the device identifier comprises receiving an indication of whether the first information was received over a Wi- Fi network or via a RF signal (The type of device (device identifier) is determined based on the wireless protocol the device communicates with, Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli wherein receiving the device identifier comprises receiving an indication of whether the first information was received over a Wi- Fi network or via a RF signal, as taught by Park.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method of Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Tuli by providing greater flexibility in determining the type of device (Park: column 10 lines 2-18.).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Liston and further in view of Fujisawa (US 8,831,952 B2, issued 09/09/2014, hereinafter “Fujisawa”).
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Smith in view of Liston further teaches a method wherein causing output of the user interface on the at least one other device comprises causing, based on the second information indicating that the user device is the hands free device, the at least one other device to present a voice command user interface (Smith: ¶ [0052]-[0056]).
Smith in view of Liston does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the presentation of the voice command user interface comprises talking back to a user of the hands free device.
However, Fujisawa teaches a method wherein the presentation of the voice command user interface comprises talking back to a user of the hands free device (Fujisawa: column 8 lines 1-26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Smith in view of Liston wherein the presentation of the voice command user interface comprises talking back to a user of the hands free device, as taught by Fujisawa.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective presentation of the voice command user interface (Fujisawa: column 8 lines 1-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t teach “selecting…a user interfaces, from a plurality of user interfaces” wherein a second one of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to be navigated “using a combination of one or more voice commands and one or more buttons” because Liston’s interface only includes selectable buttons or voice commands not a combination of both (Remarks: pages 14 and 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Liston teaches that the UI is modified/selected based on the determined functionality which includes abilities to take voice commands and available buttons (Liston: ¶ [0098]). Liston also teaches that application interfaces are associated in a database with different controller types, number of input buttons and voice command ability and then selected as the optimal user interface based on a comparison to the remote controller being used (Liston: ¶ [0225]). Liston also describes the same menu interface being controlled via buttons and voice commands (Liston: ¶ [0290]). Accordingly, it is clear that the optimized user interface that is selected based on the capabilities of the remote controller as described in ¶ [0203]-[0205] includes buttons and voice command capabilities.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights