Detailed Action
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/956415 (“’415 Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of the instant application is September 22, 2022. Because the instant application was on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a continuing reissue application of US application 16/592360, (‘360 application), filed 10/3/2019, which is a reissue application of US Patent 9,880,808 (“808 Patent”), which was filed as application 14/149487 (the ‘487 application) on 1/7/2014 and is entitled “DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING A DISPLAY APPARATUS IN A VOICE RECOGNITION SYSTEM.”
Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the
Examiner's independent review of the ‘808 Patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that he cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘808 Patent. Also based upon the Examiner's independent review of the ‘808 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations.
This action was issued following Applicant’s response of December 8, 2025, which included: 1) claim amendments and 2) arguments.
II. STATUS OF CLAIMS
The ‘808 Patent issued with claims 1-20 (“Patented Claims”). The Preliminary Amendment of 9/29/2022 cancelled claims 1-20 and added claims 21-30. The preliminary amendment of 11/29/2022 cancels claims 21-30 and adds claims 31-50. The amendment of 12/17/2024 amends claims 31-34, 36-38, 41-44, 47, and 48. The amendment of 4/4/2025 amends claims 31, 35, 41, and 45. The amendment of 12/08/2025 amends claims 31 and 41 and cancels claims 40 and 50. As such, as of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
a. Claims 31-39 and 41-49 (“Pending Claims”).
b. Claims 31-39 and 41-49 are examined on the merits below (“Examined Claims”)
III. AMENDMENT OF 12/8/2025
The amendment to the claims filed 12/8/2025 has been entered and considered.
IV. CONTINUING DATA AND PRIORITY
This application is a continuing reissue of US Application 16/592,360, filed October 3, 2019, which is a reissue of application 14/149487, filed January 7, 2014. 14/149487 claims priority to Korean application 2013-0001807, filed January 7, 2013. Because the earliest possible effective filing date of this instant application is before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA First Inventor to Invent provisions do apply to this application.
In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the prior applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record in the prior applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the prior applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution histories of the prior applications are relevant in this application.
VI. REISSUE DECLARATION
The declaration filed 9/29/2022 is approved.
V. ART REJECTIONS
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 31-33, 35-39, 41-43, and 45-49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paik 2012/0265536 in view of Freeman US Patent 11,671,920 and Foerster et al US Patent 8,849,675, and Mishra et al 2009/0271200.
As to claim 31, Paik shows an electronic device including a display 50 (paragraph [0019]), storage [paragraph [0041], a communicator 20, 30, and 40 and a processor (paragraph [0041]). The processor as discussed in paragraphs [0022]-[0025], receives a first voice input while a content is displayed on the display and determines whether the voice input received is a command present in a voice command table (paragraph [0023]), and performs the corresponding function if it is. If the command is not in the voice command table, then Paik determines if it is similar to another command and performs a function based on data in the command if it is similar (see paragraphs [0025]-[0029. Paik does not specifically refer to second commands that require additional voice input. However, Freeman teaches in column 9, line 25-column 10 line 30 that some commands, like voicemail, require multiple layers of voice input. It would have been obvious to modify Paik to use such a process for complicated inputs, to accommodate voice controls that require more input. Further, it is a known method of handling complicated commands in the art. The combination does not provide a display of a UI that has a guide for an interactive command that performs the same function with a single user input. However, Foerster teaches in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5, after prompting the user for additional data relative to a command, suggesting a more complete command to the user, to avoid the additional steps. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to suggest complete commands to the user, to eliminate extra processing steps and save time. Finally, Paik shows that when the first voice input does not match a command, displaying information in a UI as to the keywords from the input, for example, the missing words (see paragraphs [0022]-[0025]). Paik, Freeman, and Foerster do not send the signal to a server and receive instructions back from the server when the command does not correspond to a stored command. However, Mishra does exactly that, i.e. when the command is not one of the stored commands, Mishra sends the voice signal to an external server 10 for processing and receives instructions back on how to proceed. It would have been obvious to modify the combination to process the voice signals in an external server when the command does not correspond to one of the stored commands, as it would as it would reduce power consumption and provide efficiency in the processing. Alternatively, it is merely the selection of a well-known processing technique in the art.
As to claim 32, the combination teaches that if the second command is a command prestored in memory, i.e. the voice command list, and that the processor performs a function based on control information corresponding to the voice input (Paik, columns [0022]-[0025]).
As to claim 33, Paik teaches that when the voice input does not match a command in the table, the system preferentially performs a function based on keywords in the voice input (see paragraphs [0025]-[0029]).
As to claim 35, the single voice input performs the same function as both inputs in Freeman.
As to claim 36, Paik teaches displaying a third UI when the voice input does not correspond to the voice command table (see paragraphs [0022]-[0025]).
As to claim 37, the predetermined command of Paik is not transmitted to a server (see paragraphs [0022]-[0030]).
As to claim 38, the combination teaches transmitting the voice input to the server for processing, as discussed above.
Claims 41-43 and 45-48 are rejected for the reasons given above.
Claims 34 and 44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paik in view of Freeman, Foerster, and Mishra, as applied to claims 31-33, 35-39, 41-43, and 45-48 above, further in view of and Hennum 2011/0184932.
The combination does not provide the hierarchy structures. However, Hennum teaches a plurality of hierarchy structures. (see Hennum p0065) It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art to include Hennum’s teaching with the system of Paik in order to provide user with hierarchy information structure to the user and improve the overall experience with the system.
Claims 39 and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paik in view of Freeman, Foerster, and Mishra, as applied to claims 31-33, 35-39, 41-43, and 45-48 above, further in view of and Balasuriya 2003/0139924
The combination above does not have multiple servers. However, Balasuriya in paragraph [0024] teaches using multiple servers, so the voice can be received in one and processed in another. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to use multiple servers, as it is merely the substitution of one known processing technique for another.
VI. ANSWER TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments 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.
VII. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L NASSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/ROBERT L NASSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
CONFEREES:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992