Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, with respect to the amended Claim 19 and the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 19 under 35 USC 102, and Claim 20 under 35 USC 103, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lyon et al. (US Patent 10,672,307 B2).
Applicant's arguments filed, with respect to the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 112, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s specification does not include any description for the claim limitation of Claim 20. Therefore, Claim 20 remains rejected under 35 USC 112.
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 effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rexroad et al. (US Pub. 2016/0164577 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rexroad teaches a system (see Fig.1, Fig.2 and paragraph [0027]), comprising:
a processing device (see Fig.3 (316) and paragraph [0031]);
and a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing device (see Fig.3 (320), paragraph [0031] and paragraph [0066], memory devices), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, in relation to a first device, one or more inputs (see Fig.1 (105) and paragraph [0020], detecting the second device in physical proximity of the device);
processing the one or more inputs in relation to one or more inputs received in relation to a second device to determine a physical proximity of the first device to the second device (see Fig.1 (109) and paragraph [0021], pairing the first and second devices);
and adjusting one or more operations of the first device based on the determined physical proximity of the first device to the second device (see Fig.1 (121,125) and paragraph [0024], switching between inbound streams and creating an aggregate enhanced stream).
Regarding Claim 2, Rexroad further teaches wherein receiving one or more inputs comprises perceiving one or more access points in relation to a first device (see Fig.1 (105,109) and paragraphs [0019-0020], identifying and determining the presence of a second device in proximity with the first device).
Regarding Claim 3, Rexroad further teaches wherein receiving one or more inputs comprises perceiving one or more devices in relation to a first device (see Fig.1 (105,109) and paragraphs [0019-0020], identifying a second device to pair with the first device).
Regarding Claim 4, Rexroad further teaches wherein receiving one or more inputs comprises receiving one or more audio inputs in relation to a first device (see Fig.1 (105,109) and paragraph [0021]), receiving ultrasonic audio input when pairing the devices).
Regarding Claim 5, Rexroad further teaches wherein receiving one or more inputs comprises receiving one or more inputs originating from the second device (see Fig.1 (105,109) and paragraph [0021]), receiving inputs when pairing the devices).
Regarding Claim 6, Rexroad further teaches wherein receiving one or more inputs comprises receiving one or more location coordinates in relation to a first device (see Fig.1 (105,109) and paragraph [0020], geographical location associated with a meeting).
Regarding Claim 8, Rexroad further teaches wherein adjusting one or more operations of the first device comprises selecting the first device in lieu of the second device to initiate one or more operations (see Fig.1 (117,121) and paragraph [0023], identifying the first device to switch streams and create an aggregate enhanced stream).
Regarding Claim 9, Rexroad further teaches wherein selecting the first device comprises selecting the first device in lieu of the second device based on determination that an audio input was perceived at the first device is at a higher volume than the audio input as perceived at the second device (see Fig.1 (121) and paragraph [0024], selecting the first device based on the location of the active speaker).
Regarding Claim 11, Rexroad further teaches wherein selecting the first device comprises selecting the first device in lieu of the second device based on an output to be provided (see Fig.1 (117,121) and paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rexroad further teaches wherein adjusting one or more operations of the first device comprises selecting the second device in lieu of the first device to initiate one or more operations (see Fig.1 (117,121) and paragraph [0023], identifying a device to switch streams and create an aggregate enhanced stream).
Regarding Claim 14, Rexroad further teaches wherein adjusting one or more operations of the first device comprises initiating one or more first operations via the first device and one or more second operations via the second device (see paragraph [0013], the paired devices form a microphone array and an aggregated enhance stream is created).
Regarding Claim 15, Rexroad teaches a method (see Fig.1 and paragraph [0027]), comprising:
providing, with respect to a first user, one or more first outputs via one or more interfaces of a first device (see Fig.1 (105), paragraph [0020] and paragraph [0022], identifying devices within proximity of one another through iBeacon transmitters);
receiving, in relation to the first user, one or more inputs (see Fig.1 (105) and paragraph [0020], detecting the second device in physical proximity of the device);
processing the one or more inputs received in relation to the first user to identify a second device in relation to the first user (see Fig.1 (109) and paragraph [0021], pairing the first and second devices);
and providing, with respect to the first user, one or more second outputs via one or more interfaces of the second device (see Fig.1 (121,125) and paragraph [0024], one of the devices, based on the location of the active speaker, switches between inbound streams and transmits an aggregate enhanced stream).
Regarding Claim 17, Rexroad further teaches wherein processing the one or more inputs comprises processing one or more inputs to determine that the second device is more audibly perceptible to the first user than the first device (see Fig.1 (121) and paragraph [0024], selecting the first device based on the location of the active speaker).
Regarding Claim 18, Rexroad further teaches wherein providing one or more second outputs comprises providing an output via an interface of the second device based on a determination that the output, as provided via the interface of the second device is likely to be more perceptible to the first user than the output, as provided via an interface of the first device (see Fig.1 (121) and paragraph [0024], selecting the first device based on the location of the active speaker).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyon et al. (US Patent 10,672,387 B2).
Regarding Claim 19, Lyon teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that (see Fig.2A (506) and Col.14, Line 55 – Col.15, Line 2), when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first device, one or more audio inputs (see Fig.1 (102-1,190-1), Col.6, Line 48-59 and Col.8, Line 40-47, user request to play specific media content at a voice-activated device);
processing the one or more audio inputs, as received at the first device, to determine that the one or more audio inputs are directed to a second device (see Fig.1 (190-1,114-1), Col.5, Line 44-51, Col.6, Line 48-59 and Col.10, Line 38-43, processing the user voice command at a voice-activated device to retrieve media content from a media content host);
based on a determination that the one or more audio inputs, as received at the first device and processed, are directed to a second device, identifying content in relation to the one or more audio inputs as received at the first device (see Fig.1 (190-1,114-1), Col.6, Line 48-59 and Col.12, Line 66 – Col.13, Line 3, identifying specific music track or media content to played at the voice activated device);
and providing the content, as identified in relation to the received one or more audio inputs, via the first device in relation to which the one or more audio inputs were received (see Fig.1 (190-1,114-1), Col.8, Line 43-47 and Col.12, Line 66 – Col.13, Line 3, playing the requested music track or media content at the voice activated device).
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rexroad et al. (US Pub. 2016/0164577 A1) in view of Rosenberger (US Patent 8,340,975 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Rexroad teaches the system of Claim 1 but fails to teach receiving one or more inputs that reflect one or more redundant personal assistant interactions with respect to the first device and the second device.
Rosenberger, however, teaches receiving an input signal from a third computing device with respect to a first computing device and a second computing device in order to determine and select which of the computing devices will process a speech command (see Fig.9 (01,02, 03) and Col.13, Line 45 - Col.14, Line 4).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the processing device of Claim 1 to receive one or more inputs that reflect one or more redundant personal assistant interactions with respect to the first device and the second device. The motivation would be to determine and select, from at least three computing devices in the network, the computing device that is the closest to the audio source to Initiate the speech recognition processing.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rexroad et al. (US Pub. 2016/0164577 A1) in view of Jeong (US Pub. 2018/0285065 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Rexroad teaches the system of Claim 1 but fails to teach selecting the first device in lieu of the second device based on a determination that a gaze of a user is perceptible to the first device.
Jeong, however, teaches enabling a user to select a device based on a closer distance of the user or a gaze of the user (see paragraph [0250]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the system of Claim 1 to select the first device In lieu of the second device based on a determination that a gaze of a user is perceptible to the first device. The motivation would be to select a computing device that is closest to the user’s face to initiate the output processing.
Regarding Claim 16, Rexroad teaches the method of Claim 15 but fails to teach processing one or more inputs to determine that the second device is more visually perceptible to the first user than the first device.
Jeong, however, teaches enabling a user to select a device based on a closer distance of the user or a gaze of the user (see paragraph [0250]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Rexroad’s method the step for processing one or more inputs to determine that the second device is more visually perceptible to the first user than the first device. The motivation would be to select a computing device that is closest to the user’s face to initiate the output processing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rexroad et al. (US Pub. 2016/0164577 A1) in view of Karamchedu (US Pub. 2016/0279508 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rexroad teaches the system of Claim 1 but fails to teach processing the one or more inputs based on a determination that a location of the first device has changed.
Karamchedu, however, teaches processing the inputs of a computing device based on the location of the device and the determination of whether the device is in a specific area (see Fig.1, Fig.4 (408,410,416) and paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the processing device of Claim 1 to process the one or more inputs based on a determination that a location of the first device has changed. The motivation would be to process the inputs of a computing device when the device is in a particular location or area within a wireless network system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon et al. (US Patent 10,672,387 B2) in view of Koulomzim et al. (US Pub. 2015/0227527 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Lyon teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 19 but fails to teach providing the content based on a determination that a relevance of the content to the one or more inputs exceeds a defined threshold.
Koulomzin, however, teaches providing the content based on a determination that a relevance of the content to the one or more inputs exceed a defined threshold (see Fig.2 (220,225) and paragraph [0024)).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective fling date of the application, to include to the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 19 the instructions to provide a requested content based on a determination that a relevance of the content to a user input exceeds a defined threshold. The motivation would be to ensure that a particular content requested by the user is provided to the target device.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim includes the limitation “providing the content based on a determination that a relevance of the content to the one or more inputs exceeds a defined threshold”. The applicant’s specification does not include any description regarding determining that the relevance of the content exceeding a threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights