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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20, Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged, however are not found to be persuasive.
Referring to claims 1, 9 and 15, as amended, Applicant argues that the claims as a whole, recite a technological improvement because the claimed features “conserve battery life and/or other resources of the client device..shorten the overall duration of user/automated assistant interactions that occur via the client device and provide more efficient client and/or server resolution of spoken utterances and/or other inputs”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims have been amended to recite that the recognition of the spoken utterance, generated by the speech recognition machine learning model, comprises a term of the subset of terms to which speech to text processing is biased and that is determined to correspond to a location of interest within the area. The recognition is then used to generate the responsive data that is rendered as output. This added limitation merely recites that the recognition of the spoken utterance is now limited to one term within the subset of bias term filter criterion used in the biasing of the speech to text processing. It does not recite a practical application for the judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea because it is considered insignificant extra solution activity. The idea of restricting the biasing to a specific term of a subset of terms and then displaying results based on the specific term involves the idea of selecting certain data for analysis and display similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display).
Furthermore, Examiner submits with respect to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the technical improvement, that there is no improvement to the overall experience to the user utilizing this claimed system because the improvement is only brought about by the restricting of the biasing term used to customize the query input by the user, and which is implemented by the speech recognition machine learning model. Examiner submits that the use of the speech recognition machine learning model in this way is merely applying the judicial exception using a computer or computer software such as the machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea of biasing the audio data. As such, Examiner is not persuaded that the claims recite a technological improvement. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 for at least the reasons stated above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 recite: determining a current location of a user; receiving, via an automated assistant, audio data that captures a spoken utterance from the user and that is detected via one or more microphones of a portable computing device, wherein the spoken utterance includes natural language content corresponding to a request for the automated assistant to provide information about a location of interest; determining whether location characteristic data is associated with an area that includes the current location, wherein the location characteristic data is accessible via one or more applications of the portable computing device; in response to determining there is location characteristic data associated with the area: generating, in response to receiving the spoken utterance from the user, responsive data by biasing a data selection based on the location characteristic data, wherein biasing the data selection based on the location characteristic data includes: biasing speech to text processing toward a set of terms determined based on the location characteristic data, the speech to text processing including processing the audio data using a speech recognition machine learning model to generate a recognition of the spoken utterance, wherein biasing speech to text processing toward the set of terms includes restricting biasing of the speech to text processing to a subset, of the set of terms, based on the subset being determined to correspond to a location of interest within the area, and using the recognition in generating the responsive data, wherein the recognition comprises a term of the subset of terms to which speech to text processing is biased; and prior to receiving audio data that captures the spoken utterance from the user, causing the portable computing device to render output that informs the user that the speech to text processing is biased toward the subset of terms; and rendering, via the automated assistant of the portable computing device, responsive output that is based on the responsive data.
The determining and generating steps, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by one or more processors” language, “determining a current location of the user”, “determining whether location characteristic data is associated with an area that includes the current location”, and “generating responsive data by biasing a data selection..” in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally performing the determination steps and the biasing step 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 claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional steps of receiving, via an automated assistant audio data that captures a spoken utterance from the user and that is detected via one or more microphones of a portable computing device, wherein the spoken utterance includes natural language content corresponding to a request for the automated assistant to provide information about a location of interest; biasing speech to text processing toward a set of terms determined based on the location characteristic data, the speech to text processing including processing the audio data using a speech recognition machine learning model to generate a recognition of the spoken utterance, wherein biasing speech to text processing toward the set of terms includes restricting biasing of the speech to text processing to a subset, of the set of terms, based on the subset being determined to correspond to a location of interest within the area, and using the recognition in generating the responsive data, wherein the recognition comprises a term of the subset of terms to which speech to text processing is biased; and prior to receiving audio data that captures the spoken utterance from the user, causing the portable computing device to render output that informs the user that the speech to text processing is biased toward the subset of terms; and rendering, via the automated assistant of the portable computing device, responsive output that is based on the responsive data.
The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving a question from a person) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The rendering of output and responsive output is also considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recitation of the biasing step including biasing speech to text processing.. determined based on the location characteristic data, wherein the speech to text processing includes processing the audio data using a speech recognition machine learning model to generate a recognition of the spoken utterance, wherein biasing speech to text processing toward the set of terms includes restricting biasing of the speech to text processing to a subset, of the set of terms, based on the subset being determined to correspond to a location of interest within the area, wherein the recognition comprises a term of the subset of terms to which speech to text processing is biased, which is then used to generate responsive output data are considered to be limitations that merely apply the judicial exception using a computer or computer software such as the machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea of biasing the audio data.
Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), wherein in the example of Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin Corp, although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to the modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. As such, the court held the claims ineligible because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Examiner submits that the claims, as amended, similarly only provide the idea of an outcome of processing the audio data using the speech recognition machine learning model to generate a recognition of the data in order to display data responsive to the recognition without claiming steps that specifically describe how this processing of the audio data takes place that would go beyond reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the one or more processor) and a speech recognition machine learning model to process and output data. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the receiving and rendering steps. Furthermore the receiving and rendering functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely the receiving step is similar to OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering), see MPEP 2106.05(g). and the rendering steps are similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display).
As such, the receiving and rendering steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 10 and 16 depend from claims 1, 9 and 15 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1,9 and 15 therefore claims 2, 10 and 16 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 2, 10 and 16 furthermore recite that: the location characteristic data includes information related to one or more places of interests in the area, which are also considered mental steps as they further define the location characteristic data found in the mental step of determining, as determined in claims 1, 9 and 15.
The claims do not include additional any elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 10 and 16 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,18 and 20 depend from claims 1,9 and 15 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1,9 and 15 therefore claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,18 and 20 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,18 and 20 furthermore recite: biasing includes modifying the request by adding an alias having a defined relationship to the area (claims 3, 11, 17); biasing includes modifying the request by replacing a pronoun of the request with an alias having a defined relationship to the location of interest (claims 4, 12, 18); and biasing the data selection based on the location characteristic data includes biasing the speech to text processing to an extent that is based on the location characteristic data (claims 6,14,20), which are mental steps that can also be performed in the human mind.
The claims do not include additional any elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,18 and 20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 13 and 19 depend from claims 1,9 and 15 and thus includes all the limitations of claims 1,9 and 15, therefore claims 5, 13 and 19 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 5, 13 and 19 recite the steps of: render a prompt that solicits whether the user desires the automated assistant to bias the data selection; and bias the data selection responsive to receiving an affirmative user input responsive to the prompt.
The biasing of the data selection is considered a mental step as addressed in with regard to claim 1 above.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 5, 13 and 19 recite the additional limitations of : the user input to the rendered prompt that is implemented by the computing device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving an input function from a person that is then implemented) and is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. This step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the portable computing device) to display a prompt to a user to input a desired function. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The affirmative user input to the rendered prompt does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the portable computing device is a generic computer which performs the rendering step. Furthermore the rendering of the prompt and user input thereafter is similar to those found by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display).
As such, the rendering of the prompt and user input thereafter is well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 5, 13 and 19 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 7 recites: determining that the current location of the user has changed to a second location; receiving, via an automated assistant of the portable computing device, a second spoken utterance from the user, wherein the second spoken utterance includes natural language content corresponding to a request for the automated assistant to provide information about a second location of interest; determining whether second location characteristic data is associated with an area that includes the second location, wherein the location characteristic data is accessible via one or more applications of the portable computing device; in response to determining there is location characteristic data associated with the area that includes the second location: generating, in response to receiving the second spoken utterance from the user, second responsive data by biasing a data selection based on the second location characteristic data; and rendering, via the automated assistant of the portable computing device, responsive output that is based on the second responsive data.
The determining and generating steps in the claim are considered mental steps.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites the additional limitations of: receiving, via an automated assistant of the portable computing device, a second spoken utterance from the user, wherein the second spoken utterance includes natural language content corresponding to a request for the automated assistant to provide information about a second location of interest; and rendering, via the automated assistant of the portable computing device, responsive output that is based on the second responsive data.
The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving a spoken query from a person) and is considered mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The rendering step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying results of the input query) and is considered insignificant post-solution activity. The receiving and rendering steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the portable computing device) to receive a user query and display results of the query. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The receiving and rendering steps do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the portable computing device is a generic computer which performs the receiving and rendering steps. Furthermore the receiving and rendering steps are similar to those found by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display).
As such, the receiving and rendering steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 7, therefore claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claim 8 recites: generating, in response to receiving the second spoken utterance from the user, unbiased responsive data; and rendering, responsive output that is based on the unbiased responsive data. The generating step is a mental step.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 furthermore recites: rendering, responsive output that is based on the unbiased responsive data
The rendering step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying results) and is considered insignificant post-solution activity. The rendering step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the portable computing device) to display results of a query. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The rendering step does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the portable computing device is a generic computer which performs the rendering step. Furthermore the rendering step is similar to those found by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display).
As such, the rendering step is well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth
below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Novel and/or Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 were indicated as novel and/or non-obvious for the reasons addressed in the Final rejection dated September 20, 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164