DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on 3/19/2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 21, 24, 31 and 34 were amended. Claims 22 and 32 were canceled in the previous Office Action. Claims 21 and 31 are the independent claims. Therefore, claims 21, 23-31, 33-40 are examined. Please see below for more detail.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/19/2026 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the Double Patent Rejection is acknowledged and Examiner would agree to reconsider this item until when the Office is prepared to issue a Notice of Allowance.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 21 and 31 raised in the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 and 10 that “ The present Application is directed to the patentable improvement of a first component detecting indications of the beginpoint and endpoint of a wakeword in input audio data that is captured by a microphone as a result of user speech at the first component minimizing processing resources. Thus, the present application is directed to capturing spoken audio and determining (by the first component thereby minimizing processing resources) time information and then generating output data at the first component.”
Applicant continues on page 10:” The present application offers the patentable improvement over Meyers by processing with the first component that captured the original utterance, first time data representing a beginpoint of the first word within the audio data or second time data representing an endpoint of the first word within the audio data. As recited in the claims, the first component whose microphone captured the input data makes the determination regarding the presence of the first time data, and the second time data. The first device then determines the output data that includes the first time data, the second time data, and an indicator of the first word and then sends that data to a different component with different processing resources for additional processing.”
Examiner, does not find the argument persuasive, since the prior art applied (“Meyers”) also, as shown in the detailed claim mapping of the Office Action, teaches the beginning and ending time respectively. Furthermore, isolating a wakeword via using a VAD where an existence of a human voice is detected and subsequently the audio captured is passed on to another component (on or off device) for further processing to preserve battery longevity and/or for processing power is known in the art. The presence of the wakeword would allow (since typically such processing is a post processing activities) the isolation of the wakeword along with it’s time window. Such technology that is identifying the beginning and ending time is sufficiently disclosed by the Meyers. Due to lack of specificity, Examiner interpreted the first component to be the user device while the second component as an off device (server).
As far as the power consumption value for the first and second component is concerned, that is not a differentiating advantage or disadvantage. For the first portion, which involves the human voice detection, the function is typically carried out with a VAD which is a super low power consumption function (may be even in the order of microwatt (μW) level) while the rest of the processing activity (i.e. wakeword detection) consumes much larger power value (may be even in the order of milliwatt (mW) level). Therefore, having two different power consumption power levels is typically the outcome of processing two different function with two different component/device/circuits. Power consumption and processing power (capability as opposed to DC power) are among the two main reasons when the design trade-offs are made.
Therefore, the applicant arguments on page 10 regarding the two different power consumption value is not persuasive, and by virtue having different functionalities, it already implies different power consumptions.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC §101 rejection raised in the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 of the Amendment that “The claimed features clearly improve the efficiency of a user-system interaction. The claim specifically recites "a beginpoint of the first word" "first time data," "a first component," "audio data," "an endpoint of the first word," "second time data," "a second component," "an indicator," "first power consumption value", etc. These are clearly components used for a user-system natural language interaction. As the baseline being improved involves a computing system, the resulting improvement is technical in nature. The technical features are integrated into a practice application and cannot be performed in a human mind. For instance, what human mind includes, among other things, a "first component" and a "second component", or "a first power consumption value" and "a second power consumption value"?
As already discussed in the prior art section, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive since the detection of human voice by one component and pass it to another component for content detection is not a new technology nor an improvement to the existing technology. Furthermore, as mentioned in the 101 analysis, human can identify a beginning of a word being pronounced or when the pronunciation of word is ended. The process by which a first component does a portion of the process and the second component does the rest of the process at different power consumption level is not considered an additional element which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing of the abstract idea. Furthermore, processing resource is general and is nothing more than implementing an otherwise abstract idea with a computer which does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea. Processing resource is an inherent capability for a device which has its own set of memory and processor.
Applicant furthers on page 12 by reciting portion of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents recently issued a Memorandum regarding Step 2A Prong two, where consideration should be made as (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, or the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, or whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology.
Examiner note that the Deputy Commissioner is not a point of contention, what is the discussion point (under Step 2A Prong two) whether the additional element Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? Which it is in line with the Memorandum. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception is the key point for this step. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Using the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.) Examiner does not find such an additional element which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The inclusion of component with different capability and or different power consumption do not qualify for such a determination as mentioned earlier.
Applicant continues on page 14 “ This is different from merely cycling enabling/disabling a circuit to optimize power drain. (See Office Action at p. 3) In other words, different processing resources having different power consumption values may be utilized by different components. This combination of elements addresses the technical solution to the technical problem of resource availability, and power consumption.
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the applicant’s interpretation of previous arguments. The examiner did not claim that cycling to optimize power drain is directly commensurate with the claimed invention. Rather, the intent was to acknowledge the importance of power management and the elaborate processes manufacturers use to optimize current consumption. While I understand this, as it is not part of the current claims, it was intended as a point of context drawn from the examiner’s industry experience in hardware design.
Considering the above discussion, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive, and as such 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Please see prior art section below for more detail including updated citations and obviousness rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11521599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of one another.
Claim
Instant Application 18070830
Parent: Issued patent US11521599
21
A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining audio data representing an utterance spoken by a user, the audio data representing the utterance as captured by at least one microphone of a first component; processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine the audio data represents a first word, wherein the first component is associated with a first power consumption value; determining, based at least in part on processing of the audio data by the first component, an indication associated with further processing of the first word; processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine first time data representing a beginpoint of the first word within the audio data; processing, by the first component user device, the audio data to determine second time data representing an endpoint of the first word within the audio data; determining, by the first component, an association between the first time data and the second time data; determining, by the first component, output data comprising the first time data, the second time data, and the indication; sending the output data from the first component to a second component, wherein the second component having different processing resources than the first component, is associated with a second power consumption value different from the first power consumption value; and causing the second component to perform further processing using the output data.
1
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a first set of frames of audio data, a frame in the first set representing a portion of an utterance; processing the first set with a convolutional neural-network (CNN) to determine a first output; determining that the first output indicates a first subset of the first set of frames includes a representation of a wakeword; determining an endpoint of the wakeword corresponding to a first time that the first output crosses a threshold; receiving a second set of frames of the audio data, the second set of frames having at least one frame in common with the first set; processing the second set of frames with the CNN to determine a second output; determining that the second output indicates a second subset of the second set of frames includes the representation of the wakeword; determining a difference between a second time of the second output and a portion of a duration of the first set; determining, based at least on the difference, a beginpoint of the wakeword; based at least in part on determining the beginpoint of the wakeword, sending, to a remote system, a first indication of the beginpoint; and based at least in part on determining the endpoint of the wakeword, sending, to the remote system, a second indication of the endpoint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21, 23-31, 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The flowchart in MPEP 2106, subsection III, is used to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility. For analysis purposes, one can follow the flowchart for subject matter eligibility.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1: The independent Claims is directed to statutory categories:
Step 1: Abstract Idea Groupings – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 21 is a method claim and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 31 is a system claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A is a two-prong test.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim recite a Judicially Recognized Exception? Abstract Idea? Are these Claims nevertheless considered Abstract as a Mathematical Concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (1-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), 2-commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), 3- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and fall under the judicial exception to patentable subject matter?)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of steps in the claim limitations is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
21. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining audio data representing an utterance spoken by a user, the audio data representing the utterance as captured by at least one microphone of a first component; [This is merely amount to a data gathering activity, by way of collecting data related to a specific utterance which can be documented on a piece of paper. The usage of a microphone is considered as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Such a pre-solution activity is a Step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.]
processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine the audio data represents a first word, wherein the first component is associated with a first power consumption value; [This involves determining the word uttered within the audio data. Power consumption value is general and is nothing more than implementing an otherwise abstract idea with a computer (with a power consumption value) which does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, power consumption is an inherent characteristic of a component/device /circuit which has its own set of memory and processor. Therefore, it would be general purpose or usage of a generic model as outlined in the as-filed specification Par. 0020.]
determining, based at least in part on processing of the audio data by the first component, an indication associated with further processing of the first word; [This is merely involving in determining the word (wakeword) within the audio data. Such indication would be a key in further processing since a valid keyword is identified.]
processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine first time data representing a beginpoint of the first word within the audio data; [Human can identify a beginning of a word being pronounced. As an example, when a person starts speaking, a person nearby inadvertently turns toward the voice he hears.]
processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine second time data representing an endpoint of the first word within the audio data; [Similarly when the voice being uttered is finished, a human agent can mark it as complete since no audio being heard.]
determining, by the first component, an association between the first time data and the second time data; [This is amount to recognition of a valid word such as a wakeword which is contained (isolated) between the first time and the second time].
determining, by the first component, output data comprising the first time data, the second time data, and the indication; [Human could listen to a voice/utterance and store a diction on paper or by keeping a book and timestamp by identifying the first word and the last word of the known wakeword. Finally, the data gathered start and end of the wakeword along with the wakeword on a piece of paper.]
sending the output data from the first component to a second component, wherein the second component having different processing resources than the first component, is associated with a second power consumption value different from the first power consumption value; and [Finally, the data gathered start and end of the wakeword along with the wakeword on a piece of paper and hand it out. Processing resource is general and is nothing more than implementing an otherwise abstract idea with a computer which does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, power consumption value is an inherent characteristic for a component/ device which has its own set of memory and processor.]
causing the second component to perform further processing using the output data. [Once the recipient confirms the information, pass it further down to another individual to carry out the intended action.]
Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The rejected Claims do not include additional limitations that point to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejected Claims are directed to the abstract idea that they recite.
Claim 21 is a generic automation of a mental process since a human agent can determine, process, send, perform, receive, analyze, generate, evaluate, etc. Other than the mental process under the BRI, there is no mention of an extra element which could be considered toward integrating the abstract idea. Without such an extra element, one cannot identify anything that can be relied upon as an improvement. Prong 2 of step 2A, in the 101 analysis, asks whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The answer is no in this instance because there is no technological solution in the Claim that “integrates” the abstract idea. The Claim only suggests that the abstract idea be applied. It does not describe an application.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processors”, and “memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of using a “processor”, and “memory” to perform all of the above-mentioned steps. The use of a “processors” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/processor device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception [R-10.2019].
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Search for Inventive Concept: Additional Element Do not amount to Significantly More: The core concept here appears to relate to acquiring an utterance, detecting/extracting the wakeword’s start and stop time, and subsequently identifying the wakeword within the start and end point that were identified. Arguably a human could listen to a voice/utterance and store a diction on paper or by keeping a book and timestamp by identifying the first word and the last word of the known wakeword. Finally, the data gathered start and end of the wakeword along with the wakeword on a piece of paper and hand it out. Once the recipient confirms the information, pass it further down to another individual to carry out the intended action, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional machine components that and are being used for their well-understood, routine, and conventional and rather generic functions. Additionally, these limitations are expressed parenthetically and lack nexus to the claim language and as such are a separable and divisible mention to a machine. Merely reciting memory and processor without significantly more appears to be equivalent to a generic computer/processor to process a task that a human can process in their mind or with the aid of a paper/pen.
The use of an “computer and/or components of a computer” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function of capturing input data, storing data and retrieval data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to independent Claim 31, the additional component is a processor and memory which are not sufficient to make the claim as a whole to amount to substantially more than the underlying abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim:
Claims 23, and 33 recites: “… causing speech processing to be performed using the audio data.” Human can listen attentively and transcribe the audio he has heard as such it is a mental process which can be carried out with a pen and paper by a human. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 24, and 34 recites: “… sending, from the first component to the second component, second output data corresponding to speech processing results.” Human can convey a voice message to the second person in line or transcribe it and pass it along. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 25, and 35 recites: “… processing the audio data using a neural network to determine second output data; and determining the first time data using the second output data.” Usage of the neural network due to lack of specificity is generic and high level not some neural network invented or improved by the applicant, therefore it stands in as a generic computer model for the human mind. Such a generic neural networks for speech endpointing are well-known, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the recited neural network is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 26, and 36 recites: “… processing a first portion of the audio data to determine the first portion represents a portion of the first word; processing a second portion of the audio data to determine the second portion does not represent the first word, wherein the second portion follows the first portion in the audio data; determining first data representing a boundary between the first portion and the second portion; and determining the second time data using the first data.” Human can attentively listen to another person and transcribe what he is hearing on a piece of paper however he can separate the content in to two chunks. In the first chunk human can detect first part (i.e., wakeword), similarly he can write down the second portion which is not part of the first portion and determine that the two portion are separated and do not have any portion in common. Finally based on the start and end of the wakeword, based on the end point work back and identify the beginning point. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 27, and 37 recites: “… processing a first portion of the audio data to determine the first portion does not represent the first word; processing a second portion of the audio data to determine the second portion represents a portion of the first word, wherein the second portion follows the first portion in the audio data; determining first data representing a boundary between the first portion and the second portion; and determining the first time data using the first data.” Human can listen to another person uttering and write down the utterance he has heard in two separate portions. And by inspection he declares/determines that the first portion does not include the wakeword. Subsequently when inspecting the second portion, he determines that part of the wakeword is in the second portion. Also, he can determine that the two portion are separated and determine the wakeword and based on that determine the beginning point of the wakeword. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 28, and 38 recites: “… receiving, from at least one microphone, the audio data.” A microphone is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to pre-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 29, and 39 recites: “… determining first data representing a first segment of the audio data; determining second data representing a second segment of the audio data, wherein the second segment comprises at least a portion of the first segment; and processing the first data and the second data to determine the audio data represents the first word.” Human can listen to another person uttering and write down the utterance he has heard in two separate portions. By inspection he declares that the first portion is a representation of the first part of the utterance. Subsequently when inspecting the second portion he determines that part of the first part of the utterance is included in the second portion. Furthermore, he inspects the entire utterance together and declares that wakeword is in the utterance. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 30, and 40 recites: “wherein the first word corresponds to a wakeword.” Human by just simple inspection and comparison of the first word with a known word declares/determines that the first word is the wakeword. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 23-24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US9691378 B1), and in further view of Kumar (US 9875740 B1).
Meyers and Kumar were applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 21 and 31, Meyers teaches [A computer-implemented method, comprising: - claim 21], [A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: - claim 31] (Meyers, Col. 12, ll. 15-19:” …system 100 may also include computer readable media, including, but not limited to, flash memory, random access memory (“RAM”), and/or read-only memory (“ROM”). Backend system 100 may also include various modules that store software, hardware, logic, instructions, …”, and Col. 12, ll. 31-34:” one or more processor(s) 252, storage/memory 254, and communications circuitry 256….”).
determining audio data representing an utterance spoken by a user, the audio data representing the utterance as captured by at least one microphone of a first component; (Meyers, Col. 10, ll. 41 – 46:” Upon declaring that the audio signal represents an utterance of the trigger expression, voice activated electronic device 10 may then begin transmitting the audio signal to backend system 100 for detecting and responds to subsequent utterances made by individual 2.”, and Col. 4, ll. 47-54:” Voice activated electronic [first component] device 10 may detect the wakeword, such as “Alexa,” or “Amazon,” and may interpret subsequent user speech as being directed to voice activated electronic device 10 using one or more audio input devices (e.g., one or more microphones and/or transducers). In particular, a wakeword may be detected within an audio signal detected by one or more microphones located on voice activated electronic device 10 [first component], …”).
processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine the audio data represents a first word, wherein the first component is associated with a first power consumption value; (Meyers, Col. 2, line 21:” … electronic [first component] device begin processing audio input data.”, and Col. 4, ll. 38-46:” For example, individual 4 may say, “Alexa—Simon says, ‘My name is Alexa.’” However, alternative or additional commands may include, but are not limited to, “Alexa—What is the weather like today?”, or “Alexa—How far away is the Moon?”. In some embodiments, the commands may include multiple instances of a wakeword (e.g., “Alexa”), such as “Alexa—Simon says, ‘My name is Alexa.’ Alexa—What is the weather like?”) Note Alexa represents the wakeword, while Simon/How represents the first word. Furthermore, first component being an active device that is, it operates with power, it does consume power as such it is associated with a first power consumption value.
determining, based at least in part on processing of the audio data by the first component, an indication associated with further processing of the first word; (Meyers, Col. 2, ll. 13-17:” In response to the voice activated electronic [first component] device detecting the wakeword, the voice activated electronic device is configured to detect and interpret any words that subsequently follow the detected wakeword as actionable inputs or commands.”) Note: the processing of the audio data by the electronic (first component) device which represents first word (wakeword). Detection of the wakeword is an indication of further processing of the first word.
processing, by the first component, the audio data to determine first time data representing a beginpoint of the first word within the audio data; (Meyers, Fig. 7B, and Col. 19, ll. 44 – 47:” Command 14 includes another occurrence of the wakeword, which in this embodiment, corresponds to word 705, which, within the audio input data captured by microphone(s) 208, begins at time Q1 and ends at time Q2. “) Note: Q1 is the first time representing the beginning of the first word in the audio data, and similarly Q2 is the second time represents the end of the first word in the audio data, and microphone is part of the first component.
processing, by the first component user device, the audio data to determine second time data representing an endpoint of the first word within the audio data; (Meyers, Fig. 7B, and Col. 19, ll. 44 – 47:” Command 14 includes another occurrence of the wakeword, which in this embodiment, corresponds to word 705, which, within the audio input data captured by microphone(s) 208, begins at time Q1 and ends at time Q2. “) Note: Q1 is the first time representing the beginning of the first word in the audio data, and similarly Q2 is the second time represents the end of the first word in the audio data.
determining, by the first component, an association between the first time data and the second time data; (Meyers, Fig. 7B, and Col. 19, ll. 45 – 47:” … the wakeword, which in this embodiment, corresponds to word 705, which, within the audio input data captured by microphone(s) 208, begins at time Q1 and ends at time Q2.”, and Col. 13, ll. 55 – 60:” … a certain particular word will begin to output, as well as an amount of time that it takes for that to play. For example, the word “Alexa” may start at a time 200 milliseconds from the beginning of response 12, and may end 50 milliseconds later.”) Note: the association between the first time and the second time is represented by the word “Alexa” which represents the time isolated for the given word.
determining, by the first component, output data comprising the first time data, the second time data, and the indication; (Meyers, Col. 2, ll. 13-17:” In response to the voice activated electronic (first user) device detecting the wakeword, the voice activated electronic device is configured to detect and interpret any words that subsequently follow the detected wakeword as actionable inputs or commands.”, and Col. 19, ll. 45 – 47:” … the wakeword, which in this embodiment, corresponds to word 705, which, within the audio input data captured by microphone(s) 208, begins at time Q1 and ends at time Q2.”, and Col. 6, line 64 – Col. 7, line 7:” … the data tag or tags may also indicate an amount of time that it takes for that word to be outputted by voice activated electronic device [first component] 10. The data tag(s), such as the word identifiers and temporal identifiers (e.g., start/end time of a word within the speech) …”, and Col. 7, ll. 31-32:” send that audio input data ....”) Note: electronic device tags the words within the speech with start/stop time and once wakeword (indication) is detected the tagged input data is prepared for further processing.
Meyers, does not teach, however Kumar teaches sending the output data from the first component to a second component, wherein the second component having different processing resources than the first component, is associated with a second power consumption value different from the first power consumption value; and (Kumar, Col. 23, ll. 39-45:” … voice-enabled communications device 104 [first component] may solely be through audio input and audio output. For example, voice-enabled communications device 104 may listen for a wakeword by continually monitoring local audio. In response to the wakeword being detected, voice-enabled communications device 104 may establish a connection with backend server 608, send audio input data to backend server 608 [second component], and await/receive a response from backend server 608.”, and Col. 25, ll. 55-60:” Upon declaring that the audio signal represents an utterance of the trigger expression, voice-enabled communications device 104 may then begin sending the audio signal to backend server 608 for detecting and responds to subsequent utterances made by user 102.”) Note: it is understood that each component has its own processing resource and power consumption value by virtue of having different processing power and functionality.
causing the second component to perform further processing using the output data. (Kumar, Col. 23, ll. 39-45:” … voice-enabled communications device 104 [first component] may solely be through audio input and audio output. For example, voice-enabled communications device 104 may listen for a wakeword by continually monitoring local audio. In response to the wakeword being detected, voice-enabled communications device 104 may establish a connection with backend server 608, send audio input data to backend server 608 [second component], and await/receive a response from backend server 608.”, and Col. 5, ll. 22-62:” For example, the contents of the audio input data may be streamed to a backend server (see FIG. 7 for further explanation) such that at least a portion of the audio input data can be received by the backend server and analysis can begin on that portion and any subsequent portions immediately upon receipt. In particular, the backend server can begin processing one or more portions of the audio input data prior to the user having completed making the instructions. Thus, the backend server can start analyzing whatever portion of the audio input data it received through a variety of techniques such as automatic speech recognition (ASR) and natural language understanding (NLU) to convert the audio input data into a series of identifiable words, and then to analyze those words in order to interpret the meaning of the request from the user. … In this example, analyzing the audio input data 106 can include determining a search query “5 star places nearby,” an intended recipient “me,” and an instruction “find,” to identify the search query and provide search results in response to the search query. The backend server can then perform a search based on the search query, obtain search results, and provide the most relevant search results to the user. “)
Kumar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Meyers further in view of Kumar to send the output data from the first component to a second component, wherein the second component having different processing resources than the first component, is associated with a second power consumption value different from the first power consumption value; and causing the second component to perform further processing using the output data. Motivation to do so would allow the server to perform its intended functions (Col. 21, ll. 9-10).
Regarding claim 23 and 33, Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches causing speech processing to be performed using the audio data. (Meyers, Col. 5, ll. 30-34:” The captured audio may be sent to backend system 100 from voice activated electronic device 10 in the form of initial file 6. Initial file 6 may include the recorded audio data representing command 4, as well as one or more pieces of additional data, …”, and Col. 6, ll. 18-24:” For instance, backend system 100 may convert the audio data representing command 4 into text, and may use the text to determine the word(s) within command 4. Furthermore, backend system 100 may also include automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding function thereon to process and analyze the audio data representing command 4.”)
Regarding claim 24 and 34, Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 23, and 33 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches sending, from the first component to the second component, second output data corresponding to speech processing results. (Meyers, Col. 12, ll. 38-42:" NLU module 260 may be configured such that it determines user intent based on the detected audio received from voice activated electronic device 10. NLU module 260 may include processor(s) 252, storage/memory 254, and communications circuitry 256.”, and Col. 12, ll. 43 – 60: “Skills module 262 may, for example, correspond to various action specific skills or servers capable of processing various task specific actions. Skills module 262 may further correspond to first party applications and/or third party applications operable to perform different tasks or actions. For example, based on the context of audio received from voice activated electronic device 10, backend system 100 may use a certain application or skill to retrieve or generate a response, which in turn may be communicated back to voice activated electronic device 10. Skills module 262 may include processor(s) 252, storage/memory 254, and communications circuitry 256. As an illustrative example, skills 262 may correspond to one or more game servers for storing and processing information related to different game (e.g., “Simon Says,” karaoke, etc.). As another example, skills 262 may include one or more weather servers for storing weather information and/or providing weather information to voice activated electronic device 10.”) Note: Device 100, which 260 is part of it is mapped to second component. Also, weather information is the result of recognizing the command thru speech processing and outputting the task via a speaker such as the weather condition.
Regarding claim 26 and 36, Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches processing a first portion of the audio data to determine the first portion represents a portion of the first word; (Meyers, Col. 20, ll. 4-8:” As an illustrative example, command 14 may correspond to individual 2 asking, “Alexa—What is the weather like?” In this particular scenario, after detection the wakeword 705 (e.g., “Alexa”), the command “What is the weather like?” may be recorded by microphone(s) 208, and …”) Note: Alex represents the first portion (first word ) of the audio data.
processing a second portion of the audio data to determine the second portion does not represent the first word, wherein the second portion follows the first portion in the audio data; (Meyers, Col. 20, ll. 4-10:” As an illustrative example, command 14 may correspond to individual 2 asking, “Alexa—What is the weather like?” In this particular scenario, after detection the wakeword 705 (e.g., “Alexa”), the command “What is the weather like?” may be recorded by microphone(s) 208, and transmitted to backend system 100 to be analyzed and have a response generated for it.”) Note: The second portion of the audio data is represented by “What is the weather like?”, which does not represent the wakeword (Alexa) and only encompass the command. Lastly, the second portion is followed the first portion in the audio data.
determining first data representing a boundary between the first portion and the second portion; and (Meyers, Col. 20, line 5:” “Alexa—What is the weather like?” Note: clearly Alexa (first word) represents a boundary between the first portion and second portion.
determining the second time data using the first data. (Meyers, Fig. 7B, and Col. 19, ll. 44 – 47:” Command 14 includes another occurrence of the wakeword, which in this embodiment, corresponds to word 705, which, within the audio input data captured by microphone(s) 208, begins at time Q1 and ends at time Q2.”, and Col. 13, ll. 57 – 63:” For example, the word “Alexa” may start at a time 200 milliseconds from the beginning of response 12, and may end 50 milliseconds later. In this particular scenario, the time window is 50 milliseconds, beginning at a time 200 milliseconds after response 12 begins playing, and ending at a time 250 milliseconds after response 12 plays.”) Note: Second time data in the above example is the first-time data plus the time window or 250 msec.
Regarding claim 28 and 38, Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches receiving, from at least one microphone, the audio data. (Meyers, Col. 4, ll. 47-51:” Voice activated electronic device 10 may detect the wakeword, such as “Alexa,” or “Amazon,” and may interpret subsequent user speech as being directed to voice activated electronic device 10 using one or more audio input devices (e.g., one or more microphones and/or transducers).”)
Regarding claim 30 and 40, Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches wherein the first word corresponds to a wakeword. (Meyers, Col. 4, ll. 38-46:” For example, individual 4 may say, “Alexa—Simon says, ‘My name is Alexa.’” However, alternative or additional commands may include, but are not limited to, “Alexa—What is the weather like today?”, or “Alexa—How far away is the Moon?”. In some embodiments, the commands may include multiple instances of a wakeword (e.g., “Alexa”), such as “Alexa—Simon says, ‘My name is Alexa.’ Alexa—What is the weather like?”) Note Alex represent the first word.
Claims 25, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers, and Kumar and in further view of Mosayyebpour (US 20200126556 A1).
Mosayyebpour was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 25, and 35 Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, does not teach, however Mosayyebpour teaches processing the audio data using a neural network to determine second output data; and determining the first time data using the second output data. (Mosayyebpour, Par. 0020:” The present disclosure provides systems and methods for start point and end point detection of a keyword or phrase in an audio input stream. The accurate detection of the start point and end point of an acoustic event (e.g., a keyword or phrase), as disclosed herein allows for a reduction in subsequent processing of the audio data and an improvement in classification results.”, and Par. 0030:” FIG. 4 illustrates a process 300 for training a neural network for detecting a start point and/or end point of an acoustic event, such as for keyword detection.”)
Mosayyebpour is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Meyers, as modified above, further in view of Mosayyebpour to process the audio data using a neural network to determine second output data; and determining the first time data using the second output data. Motivation to do so would improve the performance of keyword spotting (Mosayyebpour, See Par 0035).
Claims 27, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers, and Kumar and in further view of Barra (US10079021B1).
Barra was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 27, and 37 Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, further teaches determining the first time data using the first data. (Meyers, Col. 16, ll. 23 – 35:” Data tags 401a-404a may also include temporal locations of that word (e.g., a start time and an end time of that word) within response 12. As an illustrative, non-limiting example, data tag 401a may indicate that response 12 includes the word, “My,” which begins to play at a time X1, and ends at a time X2. Similarly, data tag 402a may indicate that response 12 includes the word, “name,” which begins to play at time Y1, and ends at time Y2; data tag 403a may indicate that response 12 includes the word, “is,” which begins at time Z1, and ends at time Z2; and data tag 404a may indicate that response 12 includes the word, “Alexa,” which begins at time W1, and ends at time W2.”) Note: once the boundary/first data is identified, subsequently first time data can be determined based on the individual parameters/time windows. Although Myers does not explicitly teach determining the first time data using the first data, this would have been obvious to PHOSITA when invention was filed because individual time data/windows are known (Myers, Col. 16, ll. 23 – 35). As such, further modification such that Myers’ individual time data/windows are added up (so as to arrive at the claimed determined first time data) would only involve mere routine skill in the art.
Meyers, as modified above, does not teach, however Barra teaches processing a first portion of the audio data to determine the first portion does not represent the first word; (Barra, Col. 4, ll. 64-66:” … alternative or additional requests to ask the same question may include, but are not limited to, “What is today's weather, Alexa?” or “How is the weather in Seattle, Alexa?”) Note: the first portion is represented by either “What is today's weather”, or ““How is the weather in Seattle” which in neither case contains the first portion which could represent the first word or “Alexa”.
processing a second portion of the audio data to determine the second portion represents a portion of the first word, wherein the second portion follows the first portion in the audio data; (Barra, Col. 4, ll. 64-66:” … alternative or additional requests to ask the same question may include, but are not limited to, “What is today's weather, Alexa?” or “How is the weather in Seattle, Alexa?”) Note: the second portion in both examples represent the first word or “Alexa”.
determining first data representing a boundary between the first portion and the second portion; (Barra, Col. 4, ll. 64-66:” … alternative or additional requests to ask the same question may include, but are not limited to, “What is today's weather, Alexa?” or “How is the weather in Seattle, Alexa?”) Note: clearly in both cases/examples there is a clear boundary between the first and second portion due to the known wakeword. Once the wakeword is determined the boundary associated between the portion is identified.
Barra is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Meyers, as modified above, further in view of Barra to determine the first portion does not represent the first word; processing a second portion of the audio data to determine the second portion represents a portion of the first word, wherein the second portion follows the first portion in the audio data; determining first data representing a boundary between the first portion and the second portion. Motivation to do so would detect the wakeword regardless of if it is recognized in the middle or end of a sentence (Barra, See Col. 5, ll. 15-26).
Claims 29, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers, and Kumar and in further view of Lang (US20190043492 A1).
Lang was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 29, and 39 Meyers, as modified above, teaches the method and the system of claims 21, and 31 respectively.
Meyers, as modified above, does not teach, however Lang teaches determining first data representing a first segment of the audio data; (Lang, Par. 0083:” For instance, the wake word detection component 504 may divide the received audio content into segments of known length. Then, the wake word detection component 504 can determine where in the recording that the wake-word occurs by identifying the segment that the wake word was detected. For example, if each segment is 5 seconds long and the wake word was detected in the fourth segment, the wake word must be located between 15 and 20 seconds into the recording.”) Note: first segment can be considered to be 0 to 15 seconds.
determining second data representing a second segment of the audio data, wherein the second segment comprises at least a portion of the first segment; and (Lang, Par. 0083:” … For example, if each segment is 5 seconds long and the wake word was detected in the fourth segment, the wake word must be located between 15 and 20 seconds into the recording. The wake word detection component 504 may record the portions of the audio content containing a wake word, perhaps using one or more timestamps (e.g., a time stamp indicating a start time for the wake-word, and perhaps another timestamp indicating a stop time for that wake word). … In some instances, the wake word detection component 504 may separate the audio recording into overlapping segments, to avoid breaking apart a wake word into unrecognizable portions.”)
processing the first data and the second data to determine the audio data represents the first word. (Lang, Par. 0083:” During analysis, the wake word detection component 504 additionally determines where each wake word occurs in the received audio content. For instance, the wake word detection component 504 may divide the received audio content into segments of known length. Then, the wake word detection component 504 can determine where in the recording that the wake-word occurs by identifying the segment that the wake word was detected. For example, if each segment is 5 seconds long and the wake word was detected in the fourth segment, the wake word must be located between 15 and 20 seconds into the recording. The wake word detection component 504 may record the portions of the audio content containing a wake word, perhaps using one or more timestamps (e.g., a time stamp indicating a start time for the wake-word, and perhaps another timestamp indicating a stop time for that wake word). Such time stamps may define respective time offsets from the start of an audio recording or from another particular position in the audio recording. In some instances, the wake word detection component 504 may separate the audio recording into overlapping segments, to avoid breaking apart a wake word into unrecognizable portions. Other techniques for determining the location of a wake word within the audio recording can be utilized as well.”) Note: The entire audio content can be considered the entire audio data.
Lang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Meyers, as modified above, further in view of Lang to determine first data representing a first segment of the audio data; determining second data representing a second segment of the audio data, wherein the second segment comprises at least a portion of the first segment; and processing the first data and the second data to determine the audio data represents the first word. Motivation to do so would determine if the recorded audio includes a wake word (Lang, See Par. 0082).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Li (US20220199084A1) teaches Par. 0063:” … The key phrase spotting system 106 can use the predetermined symbol, with the beginning, end, or both, of an audio signal to determine whether the audio signal encodes a key phrase. For instance, the key phrase spotting system 106 can consider only key phrases in between two end-of-word symbols, or between a start-of-sentence marker and an end-of-word symbol, in the hypotheses.”)
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E. whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights