DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined.
All previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Amendments to the claims by the Applicant have been considered and addressed below.
With respect to the Double Patenting and 35 USC § 112 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments in which the Examiner will respond accordingly, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Arguments in pages 7-9 of Remarks filed on 03/09/2026.
Examiner response to Arguments:
Applicant' s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections from the last office action mailed on 09/05/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection(s) of claims 2-21 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Arguments in pages 9-11 of Remarks filed on 03/09/2026.
Examiner response to Arguments:
Applicant argues:
Rhee does not teach or suggest presenting information "based on the first device being communicatively coupled to the second device by the local wireless connection while the first device is in a locked state...without requesting user authentication at the first device," […] In Rhee, the connection between the user equipment and the intelligent server is used for processing voice commands and generating path rules-not as a condition or basis for bypassing authentication. […] Rhee does not teach or suggest that the decision to present information without authentication is based on the first device being communicatively coupled to a second device by a local wireless connection. […] There is no teaching in Rhee that the user equipment determines whether it is coupled to another device via a local wireless connection and then uses that determination as a basis for presenting information without authentication.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The independent claim(s) have been amended as follows:
"… receiving, by a first device, first audio data representing an utterance, wherein the first device is in a locked state
determining, by the first device, that the first device is communicatively coupled to a second device by the local wireless connection; …"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments and notes that given the broader reasonable interpretation (and considering that no specific details about either the first or the second device in the language claims), Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) still reads on the limitations argued.
More specifically, the Examiner notes that Rhee et al. does seem to disclose:
presenting, by the first device, based on the first device being communicatively coupled to the second device by a local wireless connection while the first device is in a locked state, the first information in a graphical interface of the application without requesting user authentication at the first device (in at least ¶ [0005-0006, 0060-0063, 0218 and 0229] citations as in limitations above and further ¶ [0063]: “The intelligent server 200 may receive a user voice input from the user equipment 100 through a communication network and may change the received voice input to text data. In another embodiment, the intelligent server 200 may generate (or select) a path rule based on the text data. The path rule may include information about an action ( or operation) for performing the function of an app and information about parameters necessary for executing ( or performing) the action. The path rule may include an operating sequence of the app. The user equipment 100 may receive the path rule, may select an application depending on the path rule, and may execute an operation included in the path rule in the selected application. The user equipment 100, when executing the application depending on the path rule, may partially or entirely execute the application according to various states relating to a lock screen ( e.g., a locked state, an unlocked state, and a silent lock state in which lock is released by a simple input (e.g., a touch gesture)) and may output at least a part of the consequential execution screen on the lock screen or on an unlocked screen.” and ¶ [0066]: “That is, according to an embodiment, the integrated intelligent system 10 may receive the user's speech through the user equipment 100 as a user input, the intelligent server 200 may generate a path rule based on the user input, and the user equipment 100 may operate an app depending on the path rule. According to another embodiment, the user equipment 100 may include all or a part of functions of the intelligent server 200, the personalization information server 300, and the suggestion server 400. For example, the user equipment 100 may generate a path rule based on a user input to operate an app. According to another embodiment, the intelligent server 200, the personalization information server 300, and the suggestion server 400 may be implemented in one or more external devices.”
and further ¶ [0218]: "Referring to FIG. 19, in various embodiments, an electronic device 1901 and a first external electronic device 1902, a second external electronic device 1904, or a server 1906 may connect with each other through a network 1962 or local-area communication 1964 ... "
and ¶ [0229]: " .. Also, the wireless communication may include, for example, local-area communication 1964. The local-area communication 1964 may include, for example, at least one of wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi)_communication, Bluetooth_(BT) communication, near field communication (NFC), or global navigation satellite system (GNSS) communication, and the like. "
Here, the limitation of the devices being communicatively coupled via a local wireless connection reads on the wireless communication between devices and/or server as disclosed in ¶ [0218 and 0229] citations above.)
The Examiner suggests the Applicant includes more details about the first and second devices (e.g., what they are) and how are the first and second devices working together instead of just stating they are communicatively coupled “by a local wireless connection.”
In summary, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bringert et al. (US 20130085755 A1) and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) and Shinde et al. (US 20160014607 A1).
Please refer to updated prior art rejection(s) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 recite the limitation "determining, by the first device, that the first device is communicatively coupled to a second device by the local wireless connection" in lines 5-6 of claim 2, lines 8-9 of claim 9, and lines 6-7 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Hence, dependent claims 3-8, 10-14, and 16-21 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bringert et al. (US 20130085755 A1) and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) and Shinde et al. (US 20160014607 A1).
As to independent claim 2, Bringert et al. teaches:
2. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving, by a first device, first audio data representing an utterance (see ¶ [0005]: “The present application discloses systems and methods that allow a user to enjoy the advantages of controlling a mobile computing device via voice commands without the limitations of having to either press or hold a physical button or switch on the mobile computing device or manually activate a virtual button or switch on a graphical user interface of the mobile computing device as required with existing devices.” and ¶ [0033]: “… In some examples, mobile computing device 100 [i.e., first device] may use wired interfaces 110 and/or wireless interfaces 111 to communicate with a server that performs speech recognition on behalf of mobile computing device 100.”),
performing voice processing on the first audio data to determine a meaning of the utterance (see Fig. 1 (100, mobile computing device; 110, wired interfaces; and 111, wireless interfaces) and ¶ [0033]: “… In some examples, mobile computing device 100 may use wired interfaces 110 and/or wireless interfaces 111 to communicate with a server [i.e., second device] that performs speech recognition on behalf of mobile computing device 100.”);
However, Bringert et al. do not explicitly teach, but Rhee et al. does teach:
wherein the first device is in a locked state (see Fig. 1 (100 user equipment, 200 intelligent server) and ¶ [0005-0006]: “[0005] …Accordingly, an aspect of the present disclosure provides a method for operating a voice execution function in a locked state and an electronic device supporting the same, in which the locked state is maintained or selectively released based on the type of voice execution function to address the inconvenience for control of the locked state and to enable a user to confirm a result of the voice execution function. [0006] In addition, various example embodiments disclosed herein may adaptively provide a function execution result based on a voice command in a locked state.”
¶ [0062]: “The intelligent server 200 may receive a user voice input from the user equipment 100 through a communication network and may change the received voice input to text data. In another embodiment, the intelligent server 200 may generate (or select) a path rule based on the text data. The path rule may include information about an action ( or operation) for performing the function of an app and information about parameters necessary for executing ( or performing) the action. The path rule may include an operating sequence of the app. The user equipment 100 may receive the path rule, may select an application depending on the path rule, and may execute an operation included in the path rule in the selected application. The user equipment 100, when executing the application depending on the path rule, may partially or entirely execute the application according to various states relating to a lock screen (e.g., a locked state, an unlocked state, and a silent lock state in which lock is released by a simple input (e.g., a touch gesture)) and may output at least a part of the consequential execution screen on the lock screen or on an unlocked screen.”
and further ¶ [0218]: "Referring to FIG. 19, in various embodiments, an electronic device 1901 and a first external electronic device 1902, a second external electronic device 1904, or a server 1906 may connect with each other through a network 1962 or local-area communication 1964 ... "
and ¶ [0229]: " .. Also, the wireless communication may include, for example, local-area communication 1964. The local-area communication 1964 may include, for example, at least one of wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi)_communication, Bluetooth_(BT) communication, near field communication (NFC), or global navigation satellite system (GNSS) communication, and the like. "
Here, it is interpreted that the user equipment / electronic device (i.e., first device) in a locked state and being communicatively coupled (e.g., via network, see Fig. 1) to the intelligent/personalization information/suggestion servers (i.e., second device) as disclosed in Rhee et al. reads on the first device being in a locked state and having being communicatively coupled with the second device. Additionally, the limitation of the devices being communicatively coupled via a local wireless connection reads on the wireless communication between devices and/or server as disclosed in ¶ [0218 and 0229] citations above.);
determining first information generated by an application executing locally on the first device (see ¶ [0060]: The user equipment 100 may provide a necessary service to the user through an app ( or an application program or an application) (e.g., an alarm, a message, a photo (gallery), or the like) stored in the user equipment 100. For example, the user equipment 100 may execute and operate another application through a speech recognition application (hereinafter, referred to as an app) stored in the user equipment 100…” and further ¶ [0060-0061]: “[0060] …The user equipment 100 may receive, through the speech recognition app, a user input for executing and operating the other app. The user input may be received through various input circuitry, such as, for example, and without limitation, a physical button, a touch pad, a voice input, or the like. According to an embodiment, various types of terminal devices ( or electronic devices), such as a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a notebook computer, or the like, which are connectable to the Internet, may correspond to the user equipment 100. [0061] According to an embodiment, the user equipment 100 may receive the user's speech as a user input. The user equipment 100 may receive the user's speech and may generate a command to operate an app based on the user's speech. Accordingly, the user equipment 100 may operate the app using the command. In a lock screen state, the above-described user equipment 100 may partially or entirely perform the app execution operation depending on the command to operate the app.”),
the first information generated by the application in response to the meaning of the utterance (see ¶ [0005-0006 and 0060-0062] citations as in limitation above: “[0061]…generate a command to operate an app based on the user's speech…”));
determining, by the first device, to display the first information on the first device (see ¶ [0005-0006 and 0060-0062] citations as in limitation above and further ¶ [0063]: “For example, the user equipment 100 may execute the operation and may display, on a display, a result ( or an execution state) obtained by executing the operation…”)); and
presenting, by the first device, based on the first device being communicatively coupled to the second device by a local wireless connection while the first device is in a locked state, the first information in a graphical interface of the application without requesting user authentication at the first device (see ¶ [0005-0006, 0060-0063, 0218 and 0229] citations as in limitations above and further ¶ [0063]: “The intelligent server 200 may receive a user voice input from the user equipment 100 through a communication network and may change the received voice input to text data. In another embodiment, the intelligent server 200 may generate (or select) a path rule based on the text data. The path rule may include information about an action ( or operation) for performing the function of an app and information about parameters necessary for executing ( or performing) the action. The path rule may include an operating sequence of the app. The user equipment 100 may receive the path rule, may select an application depending on the path rule, and may execute an operation included in the path rule in the selected application. The user equipment 100, when executing the application depending on the path rule, may partially or entirely execute the application according to various states relating to a lock screen ( e.g., a locked state, an unlocked state, and a silent lock state in which lock is released by a simple input (e.g., a touch gesture)) and may output at least a part of the consequential execution screen on the lock screen or on an unlocked screen.” and ¶ [0066]: “That is, according to an embodiment, the integrated intelligent system 10 may receive the user's speech through the user equipment 100 as a user input, the intelligent server 200 may generate a path rule based on the user input, and the user equipment 100 may operate an app depending on the path rule. According to another embodiment, the user equipment 100 may include all or a part of functions of the intelligent server 200, the personalization information server 300, and the suggestion server 400. For example, the user equipment 100 may generate a path rule based on a user input to operate an app. According to another embodiment, the intelligent server 200, the personalization information server 300, and the suggestion server 400 may be implemented in one or more external devices.”
and further ¶ [0218]: "Referring to FIG. 19, in various embodiments, an electronic device 1901 and a first external electronic device 1902, a second external electronic device 1904, or a server 1906 may connect with each other through a network 1962 or local-area communication 1964 ... "
and ¶ [0229]: " .. Also, the wireless communication may include, for example, local-area communication 1964. The local-area communication 1964 may include, for example, at least one of wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi)_communication, Bluetooth_(BT) communication, near field communication (NFC), or global navigation satellite system (GNSS) communication, and the like. "
Here, the limitation of the devices being communicatively coupled via a local wireless connection reads on the wireless communication between devices and/or server as disclosed in ¶ [0218 and 0229] citations above.).
Bringert et al. and Rhee et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in input/output data transferring (e.g., interfaces). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. to incorporate the teachings of Rhee et al. of wherein the first device is in a locked state and communicatively coupled to a second device; determining first information generated by an application executing on the first device without intervention of the second device, the first information generated by the application in response to the meaning of the utterance; determining, by the first device, to display the first information on the first device; and presenting, by the first device, based on the first device being communicatively coupled to the second device while the first device is in a locked state, the first information in a graphical interface of the application without requesting user authentication at the first device which provides the benefit of addressing the inconvenience for control of the locked state and to enable a user to confirm a result of the voice execution function.([0005] of Rhee et al.).
However, Bringert et al. and Rhee et al. do not explicitly teach, but Shinde et al. does teach:
determining, by the first device, that the first device is communicatively coupled to a second device by the local wireless connection (see ¶ [0033]: “Bluetooth Pairing occurs when two Bluetooth enabled devices agree to communicate with one another. When this happens, the two devices join what is called a trusted pair. When one device recognizes another device in an established trusted pair, each device automatically accepts communication, bypassing the discovery and authentication process that normally happen during Bluetooth interactions.”);
Bringert et al., Rhee et al., and Shinde et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in input/output data transferring (e.g., interfaces). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. and Rhee et al. to incorporate the teachings of Shinde et al. of determining, by the first device, that the first device is communicatively coupled to a second device by the local wireless connection which provides the benefit of improving the security of wireless networks and devices (abstract of Shinde et al.).
As to independent claim 9, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Bringert et al. further teaches:
9. (Currently Amended) A first device comprising:
memory that stores computer-executable instructions (see Fig. 1 (102) and ¶ [0025]: “The mobile computing device 100 includes a plurality of components, such as one or more processors 101, data storage 102,…”); and
at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions (see Fig. 1 (101) and ¶ [0025] citation as in limitation above.) to:
[perform the limitations as in claim 1, above as disclosed by Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al.]
As to independent claim 15, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Bringert et al. further teaches:
15. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a first device (see ¶ [0027]: “The data storage 102 is configured to store data as well as computer-readable program instructions 108…”), cause the first device to:
[perform the limitations as in claim 1, above as disclosed by Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al.]
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach all of the limitations as in claims 2, 9, and 15, above.
Bringert et al. further teaches:
6, 13, and 19. (Previously presented) The method/first device/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, 9 and 15, further comprising
determining that the first audio data comprises a wake word (see ¶ [0008]: “In operation, the trigger word detection subroutine includes determining whether spoken words received via a microphone include at least one trigger word of a set of one or more trigger words…”).
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bringert et al. (US 20130085755 A1) and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) and Shinde et al. (US 20160014607 A1) as in claims 2, 9, 15, above, and further in view of Mendonca et al. (US 20170289807 A1) and Cheyer et al. (US 20120245941 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach all of the limitations as in claims 2. 9, and 15, above.
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. does not explicitly teach but Mendonca et al. teaches:
3, 10 and 16. (Previously presented) The method/first device/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, 9 and 15, further comprising:
determining that the first device is in the locked state (see Fig. 3 (Here, it is interpreted that no authentication is needed once it has been set to “allow” and “always use this answer” as presented in 304), Fig. 4, ¶ [0050]: “…For instance, if a user selects the permission option 310 and then selects the allow control 306, a subsequent request from the guest device 124 to connect and project to the host device 102 while the computing device is locked will be automatically allowed without presenting the permission GUI 304. The guest device 124, for example, is added to the projection policies 134 as a device that is permitted to project to the host device 102 without requiring user input allowing the guest device 124 to project.”, and ¶ [0055]: “In the scenario 400, the host device 102 is in the locked state 202 and the projection connection 314 has been established, such as described above…”) and that the first device lacks a connection to the second device (see ¶ [0059]: “According to various implementations, the various actions and communications discussed in the scenarios 200-400 occur while the host device 102 is in the locked state 202. For instance, when the guest device 124 and/or the host device 102 terminates the projection connection 314, the host device 102 persists in the locked state 202 and the lock screen 204 is displayed in place of the projection canvas 406.”);
Bringert et al., Rhee et al. and Shinde et al., and Mendonca et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in input/output arrangements for data transferring (e.g., interfaces). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Mendonca et al. of determining that the first device is in the locked state and that the first device lacks a connection to the second device which provides the benefit of enabling functionality to be delivered across multiple devices to provide a common and seamless experience to a user of the multiple devices (¶ [0110] of Mendonca et al.).
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al., and Shinde et al. and Mendonca et al. does not explicitly teach, but Cheyer does teach:
receiving, by the first device, second audio data to access the first information (see Fig. 4 and ¶ [0031]: “In some implementations, when an unauthenticated user (e.g., a user that has not been authenticated yet) attempts to access features of or provide input to device 100, authentication of the user can be performed. For example, when a user attempts to place a telephone call, access an e-mail application, address book or calendar on a password locked device, the user interface of FIG. 3 can be presented to the user to allow the user to enter a password, code, or other user authenticating input. In some implementations, if the user enters a password or code that is known to device 100, the user can be authenticated and the device 100 and/or features of device 100 can be unlocked. If the user enters a password or code that is unknown to the device 100, the user cannot be authenticated and device 100 and/or features of device 100 can remain locked. In some implementations, device 100 can be configured to perform voice authentication of a user, as described with reference to FIG. 4.”, Voice Authentication [0032]: “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of an example process 400 for voice authentication. For example, voice authentication of a user can be performed when a speech input is received at a locked device by performing speaker recognition analysis on the speech input. Authentication of a user can be performed using text-independent voice authentication techniques, as described above.”, and ¶ [0037]: “At step 408, the command can be executed when the voice is authenticated. In some implementations, if the user's voice in the speech input can be matched to a voiceprint of an authorized user, the user's voice can be authenticated and the device can execute the determined command. In some implementations, device 100 can execute the determined command while device 100 is locked. For example, device 100 can remain locked while device 100 executes the command such that additional voice (or non-voice) input received by device 100 will require authentication of the user providing such input. In some implementations, locked device 100 can be unlocked in response to authenticating a user to locked device 100 using voice authentication processes described above. For example, locked device 100 can be unlocked when a user's voice is authenticated as belonging to an authorized user of device 100 such that subsequent input or commands do not require additional authentication.”);
preventing access to the first information based on the second audio data until user authentication is received [“OR” indicating at least one required] (see Fig. 4 and ¶ [0031-0032 and 0037] citations as in limitation above.).
Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al., and Shinde et al. and Cheyer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in wireless mobile communication devices (e.g., communication network through e-mail, schedulers and address books). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cheyer of receiving, by the first device, second audio data to access the information and preventing access to the information based on the second audio data until user authentication is received which provides the benefit of including more user-friendly authentication process for accessing a locked device (¶ [0006] of Cheyer).
Claim 4-5, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bringert et al. (US 20130085755 A1) and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) and Shinde et al. (US 20160014607 A1) as in claims 2, 9, 15, above, and further in view of Lang (US 20170245051 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al., and Shinde et al. teaches all of the limitations as in claims 2, 11, and 16, above.
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. do not explicitly teach, but Lang does teach:
4, 11, and 17. (Previously presented) The method/first/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium device of claim 2, 10, and 16, further comprising:
determining the first device is physically proximate to the second device based on the first device being connected to a wireless connection and the second device being connected to the wireless connection (see [0037 and 0135]: “[0037] … For example, a playback device may include a wired or wireless headphone. In another example, a playback device may include or interact with a docking station for personal mobile media playback devices. In yet another example, a playback device may be integral to another device or component such as a television, a lighting fixture, or some other device for indoor or outdoor use. [0135] In another example, as previously suggested, one or more other devices in the media playback system may also include network microphone devices and/or other sensors. Accordingly, a network of available sensors may be configured to determine proximity or locate (i.e. via triangulation, etc.) the user when the user provides the voice input to the corresponding network microphone device. In one case, if the user is holding, or has recently used a control device such as CR 522, a location of the user, or proximity between the user and the playback devices/playback zones may be determined based on a signal strength between the control device and the playback devices. Similarly, an audio magnitude of the voice input as detected by the other network microphone devices, or wireless signal interference caused by the user between the various devices may also be received and applied by computing device 506 to determine the physical location of the user when the voice input was detected, and accordingly identify the subset of the two or more playback zones as playback zones that are to perform the media playback command. Other examples are also possible.”).
Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. and Lang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in wireless mobile communication devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Lang of determining the first device is physically proximate to the second device based on the first device being connected to a wireless connection and the second device being connected to the wireless connection which provides the benefit of facilitating wireless and/or wired communication between various network devices ([0081] of Lang).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. and Lang teach all of the limitations as in claim 4, 11, and 17 above.
Bringert further teaches:
5,12, and 18. (Previously presented) The method/first device/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 4,11 and 17, wherein the wireless connection comprises at least one of:
a Bluetooth connection or WiFi connection (see ¶ [0033]: “The communications interfaces 105 may include one or more wireless communications interfaces 110 and one or more wired interfaces 111. The wireless interfaces 110 may include any type of wireless communications interface configured to transmit and receive data according to any of a number of different wireless communications protocols, such as Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 (IEEE 802.11 may refer to IEEE 802.11-2007, IEEE 802.11n-2009, or any other IEEE 802.11 revision) or other Wi-Fi variant,…”).
Claims 7-8, 14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bringert et al. (US 20130085755 A1) and further in view of Rhee et al. (US 20180247065 A1) and Shinde et al. (US 20160014607 A1) as in claims 2, 9, 15, above, and further in view of Dadu et al. (US 20170032784 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al.teach all of the limitations as in claims 2 and 9, above.
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. do not explicitly teach, but Dadu et al. does teach:
7 and 14. (Previously presented) The method/first device of claim 2 and 9, wherein:
the application on the first device comprises a calendar application (see ¶ [0028] : “A user agnostic command may be any command that does not require a user's identifying; information or personal data, such as account information (e.g., user IDs, passwords and contacts for email, social media, financial institution and other accounts), device usage history (e.g., web browser history, cookies), calendar appointments…” and ¶ [0052]: “The operating system 694 may control the allocation and usage of the components illustrated in FIG. 6 and support one or more application programs 696. The operating system 694 may comprise a speech verification module 697 that verifies that the user who speaks a wake phrase is authorized to operate the device. The operating system may further comprise a command interpretation module that interprets the wake phrase as a command to be performed by the device 600. The application programs 696 may include common mobile computing device applications (e.g., email applications, calendars, contact managers, web browsers, messaging applications) as well as other computing applications.”);
the first information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application (see ¶ [0028]: “A user agnostic command may be any command that does not require a user's identifying; information or personal data, such as account information (e.g., user IDs, passwords and contacts for email, social media, financial institution and other accounts), device usage history (e.g., web browser history, cookies), calendar appointments and user preferences (e.g., movie, restaurant preferences associated with various applications executable by the device). Examples of user agnostic commands include commands that inquire about the weather at the device's present location, results of sporting events and stock prices. Example of commands that are not user agnostic include commands such as “read my email,” “give me directions home” and “call Victoria”.”); and
the method further comprises enabling touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received (see ¶ [0028 and 0052] citations as in limitations above, and further Fig. 5 and ¶ [0037, 0039-0040]: [0037]: “FIG. 5 is a flowchart of a third exemplary method 500 of waking a computing device and performing speaker verification using the same audio input. The method 500 may be performed by, for example, a smartphone that is in sleep state. In the sleep state, the touchscreen of the smartphone is turned off and one or more processors are disabled, The smartphone's audio capture pipeline remains operating and comprises a low-power engine that performs wake phrase recognition and speaker verification on audio input.”, [0039]: “At process act 530, the user is verified based at least in part on a portion of the audio input comprising the wake phrase. In the example, the user is verified based on a portion of the audio input comprising the “hey phone” wake phrase. The smartphone verifies that the user is authorized to use the device by comparing the results of biometric analysis of the portion of the audio input comprising the wake phrase against biometric identifiers associated with users authorized to operate the device.”, [0040]: “At process act 540, the computing device transitions from the low-power state to an active state. In the example, after the user is verified to be a user that is authorized to operate the device, the smartphone transitions from the sleep state to an active state by turning on the display and enabling the one or more processors. The user does not have to provide any additional audio input to gain access to the device. Thus, after providing the “hey phone” wake phrase, the user may be taken to a home screen or an application [i.e., calendar, as mentioned in ¶ [0028 and 0052] citations above.] that was executing prior to the smartphone entering the sleep state.”).
Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. and Dadu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in voice/speech processing/authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dadu et al. of the information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application, and the method further comprises enabling touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received which provides the benefit of device power consumption being reduced in embodiments where the device is awakened only after a speaker has been identified (¶ [0041] of Dadu et al.).
Regarding claims 20-21, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach all of the limitations as in claim 15, above.
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. do not explicitly teach, but Dadu et al. does teach:
20. (Previously presented) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein:
the application comprises a calendar application (see ¶ [0028 and 0052] citations as in claims 7 and 14 above.);
the first information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application (see ¶ [0028] citation as in claim 7 and 14 above.); and
the instructions, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors of the first device, further cause the first device to enable touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received (see ¶ [0028 and 0052] and further Fig. 5 and ¶ [0037, 0039-0040] citations as in claims 7 and 14 above.).
Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. and Dadu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in voice/speech processing/authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. and Shinde et al. in combination with Rhee et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dadu et al. of the application on the first device comprises a calendar application, the information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application, and the method further comprises enabling touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received which provides the benefit of device power consumption being reduced in embodiments where the device is awakened only after a speaker has been identified (¶ [0041] of Dadu et al.).
Dadu et al. further teaches:
21. (Previously presented) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein:
the application on the first device comprises a calendar application (see ¶ [0028 and 0052] citations as in claims 7 and 14 above.);
the first information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application (see ¶ [0028] citation as in claim 7 and 14 above.); and
the instructions, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors of the first device, further cause the first device to enable touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received (see ¶ [0028 and 0052] and further Fig. 5 and ¶ [0037, 0039-0040] citations as in claims 7 and 14 above.).
Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. and Dadu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in voice/speech processing/authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dadu et al. of the application on the first device comprises a calendar application, the information comprises event information for an event associated with a calendar application, and the method further comprises enabling touch-based functionality of the calendar application based on the user authentication being received which provides the benefit of device power consumption being reduced in embodiments where the device is awakened only after a speaker has been identified (¶ [0041] of Dadu et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. teach all of the limitations as in claim 2, above.
However, Bringert et al. in combination with Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. do not explicitly teach, but Dadu et al. does teach:
8. (Previously presented) The method of claim 2, wherein the first information is presented in the graphical interface of the second device (see ¶ [0042 and 0052]: [0042]: “The technologies, techniques and embodiments described herein may be performed by any of a variety of computing devices [i.e., second device], including mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, handheld computers, tablet computers, laptop computers, media players, portable gaming consoles, cameras and video recorders), non-mobile devices (e.g., desktop computers, servers, stationary gaming consoles, set-top boxes, smart televisions) and embedded devices (e.g., devices incorporated into a vehicle, home Or place of business). As used herein, the term “computing devices” includes computing systems and includes devices comprising multiple discrete physical components.” and [0052]: “The operating system 694 may control the allocation and usage of the components illustrated in FIG. 6 and support one or more application programs 696. The operating system 694 may comprise a speech verification module 697 that verifies that the user who speaks a wake phrase is authorized to operate the device. The operating system may further comprise a command interpretation module that interprets the wake phrase as a command to be performed by the device 600. The application programs 696 may include common mobile computing device applications (e.g., email applications, calendars, contact managers, web browsers, messaging applications) as well as other computing applications.”).
Bringert et al., Rhee et al., and Shinde et al. and Dadu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in voice/speech processing/authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bringert et al. and Rhee et al. and Shinde et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dadu et al. of information is presented in the graphical interface of the second device which provides the benefit of device power consumption being reduced in embodiments where the device is awakened only after a speaker has been identified (¶ [0041] of Dadu et al.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Michalske (US 20090205041 A1) which discloses a device [in a] password-locked state […] In one embodiment, the device emergency-unlock display state 209 can only be entered when authorized medical personnel initiate an emergency-unlock. For example, medical personnel could enter a medical password or could place the portable electronic device in an authorized docking device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keisha Y Castillo-Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached on (571)272-7799. 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.
Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres
Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights