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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1,3,6-9,11, 14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) in further view of Lan et al (11,600,291).
As per claim 1, Leblang et al (20180007060) teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
A storage; an interface to communicate with an external apparatus (as, a voice capturing endpoint 140 – para 0022), and a server; and a processor configured to: based on information stored in the storage or obtained from the server (para 0030, 0059)
identify whether a first audio signal received through the interface corresponds to a trigger command for activating a speech recognition function of the external apparatus, based on a second audio signal received after the first audio signal identified as corresponding to the trigger command is received through the interface, identify a command for the external apparatus, (see para 0027 monitoring for an awake mode trigger word, with a following voice command – para 0034, via an external apparatus among apparatuses – para 0050);
based on identifying that the identified command is performable by the external apparatus, identify a state of the external apparatus including at least one of whether the external apparatus has been connected to a network or whether the external apparatus has stored authentication information, (as, voice capturing endpoint operate in default mode and continuously listed to incoming speech, while monitoring for a trigger word – para 0027; and analyzing and monitoring, the state of the apparatus connected to the external apparatus – see para 0038, and in the instance of authentication, either authentication performed at the apparatus, or at the service provider – para 0031),
based on the identified state of the external apparatus, transmit information including at least one of information about network connection or information about an account needed by the external apparatus to carry out the function corresponding to the identified command, to the external apparatus through the interface (as, the service provider environment receives one or more commands from the voice-capture endpoint – para 0031; see also in para 0031, wherein the service provider environment receives commands, already authenticating the identity, and accessing the one or more services according to the rules/policies).
Although Leblang et al (20180007060) teaches networked device in communication with each other, and differing networked available devices at the same time (para 0077), along with devices in communication with each other – para 0038), to perform functions from the access services (para 0046), and changing the command to one that is recognizable by the API – see para 0044), Leblang et al (20180007060) does not explicitly teach the ability to determine if the command is toward a different device (or, to a device that is capable of performing the command); Sharifi (20220157318) teaches a network of devices wherein capabilities are determined for each device – see para 0006, 0008, and para 0013 (commands sent to a device that has the capability of communicating with a smart thermostat), wherein within the network of devices, an assistant device is chosen to be the lead device, to control/command the routing of the information to the capable assistant device (para 0063); that are not necessarily registered – ie “unregistered” -- (see Sharifi et al (20220157318), para 0033, wherein the fulfillment engine scans for connected devices through the network/identifying devices with capabilities; furthermore, Sharifi et al (20220157318) repeated scenarios of “disparate devices” shows, as an OPTION, to group/subgroup the devices according to capabilities, to reduce latency times – para 0008. Furthermore, in Sharifi et al (20220157318), para 0010, the devices are grouped/ registered AFTER the user explicitly wants to generate the group – “when user input explicitly indicates a group should be generated”; further examples of “disparate devices” in Sharifi et al (20220157318) – para 0135, para 0136, and para 0124). Furthermore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of networked devices to modify the network control of Leblang et al (20180007060) to include identifying a command to an external device (separate device) than the electronic apparatus and performing the functions, including sending commands to activate the device, and “unregistered devices” as taught by Sharifi et al (20220157318) (above), because it would advantageously allow for more intense processing to occur on the cloud based devices (rather than older/cheaper device) and still effectively use the older devices for more accurate function execution (see Sharifi et al (20220157318) , see para 0005, 0004, 0008).
The combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) teaches the choosing/selection of devices based on capability, as noted above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach “based on trigger commands…..identifying….a SR function according to signal-to-noise ratios of audio signal received through the electronic apparatus and the external apparatus”; Lan et al (11,600,291) teaches the selection of eligible devices by choosing voice enabled devices that are measuring a higher SNR (col. 3 lines 7-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of speech/voice device processing to enhance the device selection technique as taught by the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) with device selection based on higher signal-to-noise ratios (SNR’s) because it would advantageously insure that the recognition process would execute, and not worry about the speech utterances not being able to be recognized (Lan et al (11,600,291) col. 3 lines 3-8).
As per claim 3, the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive information about the state of the external apparatus, based on matching between the received first audio signal and the trigger command for the external apparatus (as, Leblang et al (20180007060) toggling between voice-capturing input, and manual, while monitoring for a trigger word – para 0027).
As per claim 6, the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify another external apparatus that obtains information corresponding to the function to be performed by the external apparatus, and receive the information from the other external apparatus (as, Leblang et al (20180007060) communicating with multiple devices – para 0040).
As per claim 7, the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a natural language processing engine, wherein the processor is configured to identify the command for the external apparatus corresponding to the second audio signal based on the natural language processing engine (as, Leblang et al (20180007060) allowing the user to speak-in login information – para 0023 – examiner notes that the login info, such as username/etc. requires speech recognition to recognize the username).
As per claim 8, the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a display,
wherein the processor is configured to control the display to display a graphic user interface (GUI) showing the identified state of the external apparatus (as, Leblang et al (20180007060) displaying the login information – para 0023, as well as the feedback from the service provider – para 0024).
Claims 9,11,14 are method claims whose steps are performed by apparatus claims 1,3,6-8 above and as such, claims 9,11,14 are similar in scope and content to claim 1,3,6-8; therefore, claims 9,11, 14 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1,3,6-8 above.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim performing steps found in apparatus claims 1,3,6-8 above and as such, claim 15 is similar in scope and content to claims 1,3,6-8; therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-3,6-8 above. Furthermore, Leblang et al (20180007060) teaches a computer readable medium – para 0084, performing the disclosed steps as mapped above.
Claim(s) 4,5,12,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) in view of Lan et al (11,600,291) in further view of Decenzo (20170227965) .
As per claims 4, 5, the combination of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) in view of Lan et al (11,600,291) teaches the claim elements of claim 1, as mapped above, but does not explicitly teach provisional information related to functions to be performed, with the limitation of a preset-period-of-time or preset number of times; Decenzo (20170227965) teaches a subscriber interface interacting with devices, with access to app servers and gateway server (fig. 4), which utilizes backup/secondary information – para 0288, with a timeout period for retry (pp16, table, ‘response with retry’, and para 0171). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of networked/authentication systems to modify the system of Leblang et al (20180007060) in view of Sharifi et al (20220157318) in view of Lan et al (11,600,291) with backup/secondary information including timeout periods, as taught by Decenzo (20170227965), because it would advantageously improve the security of the system by not letting an infinite time window to be accessed for an infinite amount of access attempts ( para 0279).
Claims 12,13 are method claims whose steps are performed by apparatus claims 4,5 above and as such, claims 12,13 are similar in scope and content to claim 4,5; therefore, claims 12,13 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 4,5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the newly presented prior art against the newly presented claim amendments. Applicants arguments on pp 6-7 of the response are toward the newly amended claim language toward selecting devices based on SNR’s. Examiner notes that introduction of the Lan et al (11,600,291) to address these claim limitations.
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. Please see references listed on the PTO-892 form.
Hill et al (10397013) teaches scanning of new smart devices, with the optionality of adding a smart device, AFTER scanning to see what new smart devices are available – (see para(156) – “…includes a notice message to the user, requesting the user to provide a user action on one of the three visual affordances to start scanning for new smart devices.” ; para 0159 -- Alternatively, in some implementations, the hub device automatically discovers a new smart device, and determines that that new smart device is a simple device that needs to be added into the smart home environment. It is also noted that in some implementations, the hub device adds the new smart device into the smart home environment automatically and without user intervention after it identifies the new smart device.
Additionally:
As to switching to local verification if a connection is lost:
Ting et al (20130145420) teaches local log-in if a network connection is lost (para 0006)
Tzur-David et al (20220209955) teaches offline local login when network connection is lost (para 0031)
Determining/switching to a device, based on the capability of the device, and sending command instructions to that device:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 06/13/2026
Prosecution Insights