DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on December 31, 2026.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this action. Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orr et al. (US 10,049,663).
As per claim 1, Orr discloses, an electronic device comprising:
a microphone (element 213, microphone); and
at least one processor operatively connected with the microphone (elements 213 and 2203); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (col. 24, line 52-col. 24, line 46), cause the electronic device to:
obtain one or more commands corresponding to a first utterance obtained through the microphone, based on the first utterance (col. 33, lines 6-14),
execute first operation corresponding to a first command having a highest confidence score for the first utterance among the one or more commands, wherein the one or more commands and corresponding confidence scores for the first utterance are stored in the memory, (Fig. 8, col. 41, lines 28-64, the node having the highest confidence value among the activated nodes is selected),
identify that a second utterance obtained through the microphone is an utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command, based on the second utterance (col. 53, lines 32-53, second speech),
determine a second command having a highest confidence score for the second utterance among the one or more commands excluding the first command, based on identifying that the second utterance is the utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command, wherein determining the second command having the highest confidence score for the second utterance comprises: retrieving from the memory the one or more commands and the corresponding confidence scores for the one or more commands, and comparing the second utterance to the one or more commands excluding the first command to obtain the highest confidence score for the second utterance among the one or more commands retrieved from the memory, such that the second command is identified (col. 53, lines 32-53), and
execute a second operation corresponding to the second command. (col. 53, lines 32-53).
As per claim 2, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: obtain a confidence score for the one or more commands and the first utterance, determine candidate commands as at least one of the one or more commands having the confidence score for the first utterance that is greater than a preset confidence score, and determine the first operation corresponding to the first command having the highest confidence score with the first utterance among the candidate commands (Fig. 8, col. 41, lines 28-64 and col. 42, lines 34-51).
As per claim 3, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to identify that the second utterance is the utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command, based on obtaining the second utterance within a preset time from a time of obtaining the first utterance (col. 53, lines 32-53, second speech, intent of rejecting).
As per claim 4, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: obtain the one or more commands, based on obtaining the second utterance, after the preset time from the time of obtaining the first utterance, determine the second command having the highest confidence score for the second utterance among the one or more commands obtained from the second utterance, and execute the second operation corresponding to the second command that is determined (col. 53, lines 32-53, second speech).
As per claim 5, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: identify that the second utterance is a negative response by comparing the second utterance with a preset utterance pattern, and determine that the second utterance is the utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command, based on identifying that the second utterance is the negative response (col. 53, lines 32-53, second speech, intent of rejecting).
As per claim 6, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: identify that the second utterance is the utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command by comparing the second utterance with the preset utterance pattern, determine the second command having the highest confidence score for the second utterance among the one or more commands excluding the first command, based on identifying that the second utterance is the utterance for correcting the first operation corresponding to the first command, and execute the second operation corresponding to the second command (col. 53, lines 32-53).
As per claim 7, Orr discloses, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: obtain confidence scores for the one or more commands excluding the first command and the second utterance, and perform the first operation corresponding to the first command having the highest confidence score for the first utterance among the one or more commands excluding the first command, based on identifying that the confidence scores obtained are smaller than a preset confidence score (col. 53, lines 32-53).
As per claim 21, Orr discloses, wherein, prior to obtaining the second utterance through the microphone, the one or more commands are previously identified and stored in the memory when processing the first utterance (col. 41, lines 28-64).
As per claims 11-17, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-7, because the corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 11-17 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
February 24, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656