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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to an Amendment filed with an RCE on 4/21/2026. Claims 1, 11 and 25 have been amended. Claims 2-8 and 12-18 and 26-28 have been previously canceled. Claims 1, 9-11, 19-25 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11 and 25 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 1) prior arts do not disclose the argued limitation on page 9 of Arguments; 2) Applicant is not attacking the references individually but argues that the references are not combinable; 3) the cited references do not disclose the amended limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Gordon disclose determining whether the at least one keyword needs to be registered in a calendar application by analyzing the call voice and based on it being determined that at least one keyword needs to be registered in the calendar application” and display the action associated with the keyword ([0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon) and Goel discloses using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model, wherein the analyzing of the call voice includes inputting feature vectors obtained from the call voice to the trained AI model, which includes a plurality of network nodes located at different layers (Figs. 1-5 and [0011] of Goel, where the AI system will train a call which is convert to text by “speech to text engine” and feature vectors are extracted and fed though different layers of the NN)
Applicant is trying to argue that the references are not combinable, but fails to provide reason why the references fails to combine together.
Gordon disclose determining whether the at least one keyword needs to be registered in a calendar application by analyzing the call voice and based on it being determined that at least one keyword needs to be registered in the calendar application” and display the action associated with the keyword ([0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon). Further, Gordon discloses wherein the UI element is for asking whether to register a schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application; and based on the UI element being selected, registering the schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application. ([0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon).
Applicant argues that Gordon merely describes a feature of providing post-call actions to a user along with contextually relevant entry points so that such actions can be completed by a corresponding application, which is not the claimed inquiring whether to register a schedule related to a keyword in a calendar application when the keyword is identified as needing to be registered in the calendar application. But Gordon discloses keyword wherein the at least one keyword includes at least one of a time, a person, or a place, ([0029] of Gordon, “An example can include dates and times as being highly relevant to a calendar application. Other confidence rankings depend on the particular algorithm used in the application.”) so in another word, in Gordon, a keyword that triggers a call of a particular application, such as a calendar application triggered by keyword Saturday night at 7pm, then Gordon discloses the argued claimed subject matter of a keyword as “needing” to be registered in the calendar application.
Therefore the cited references disclose the recited limitations.
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20180181922 A1) and in view of Gordon et al (US 20130144610 A1) and in further view of Goel et al (US 20180308487 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 11 and 25, Choi discloses a control method of an electronic device, the method comprising:
during a call with a user of another electronic device by using the electronic device, obtaining at least one keyword from a content of the call with the user of the other electronic device; ([0072] of Choi, during a call the device converts call voice into text by using speech-to-text conversion technology in real time, which may analyze the text and may determine keywords used to determine the tasks or to do list in the call)
obtaining a text corresponding to the call voice; ([0072] of Choi, during a call the device converts call voice into text by using speech-to-text conversion technology in real time, which may analyze the text and may determine keywords used to determine the tasks or to do list in the call)
identifying at least one keyword from among the call voice based on the text corresponding to the call voice; ([0072] of Choi, during a call the device converts call voice into text by using speech-to-text conversion technology in real time, which may analyze the text and may determine keywords used to determine the tasks or to do list in the call and also as shown in Figs. 4-5 and [0072] and [0081]-[0084] of Choi, during a call the device converts call voice into text by using speech-to-text conversion technology in real time, which may analyze the text and may determine keywords used to determine the tasks or to do list in the call and display those keywords in section 820 of the display area on the user’s phone).
Choi does not specifically disclose keyword “wherein the at least one keyword includes at least one of a time, a person, or a place;” “displaying a user interface (UI) element after the call has ended” and “wherein the UI element is for asking whether to register a schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application; and based on the UI element being selected, registering the schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application.”
However, Gordon discloses keyword wherein the at least one keyword includes at least one of a time, a person, or a place, ([0029] of Gordon, “An example can include dates and times as being highly relevant to a calendar application. Other confidence rankings depend on the particular algorithm used in the application.”) displaying a user interface (UI) element after the call has ended. ([0004] of Gordon, “ the audio data can be obtained during a phone conversation, and post-call actions can be provided to the user with contextually relevant entry points for completion by an associated application.”)
Further, Gordon discloses wherein the UI element is for asking whether to register a schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application; and based on the UI element being selected, registering the schedule associated with the at least one keyword in a calendar application. ([0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon) and “wherein the UI element includes information about the at least one of the time, person, or place included in the at least one keyword associated with the schedule.” ([0029] of Gordon, “An example can include dates and times as being highly relevant to a calendar application. Other confidence rankings depend on the particular algorithm used in the application.”)
Choi and Gordon are analogous art because both references concern parsing data received for keywords/tokens that is desired by the user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Choi’s speech to text conversion method which allow the device to display some keywords with triggering different functions of selectable keywords as taught by Gordon. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively combine different data easily and more accurately to save user time and effort when it comes to multiple source of documents/keywords.
Even though Choi in view of Gordon disclose determining whether the at least one keyword needs to be registered in a calendar application by analyzing the call voice and based on it being determined that at least one keyword needs to be registered in the calendar application” and display the action associated with the keyword ([0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon), but Choi in view of Gordon do not specifically disclose “using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model, wherein the analyzing of the call voice includes inputting feature vectors obtained from the call voice to the trained AI model, which includes a plurality of network nodes located at different layers”.
However, Goel discloses using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model, wherein the analyzing of the call voice includes inputting feature vectors obtained from the call voice to the trained AI model, which includes a plurality of network nodes located at different layers (Figs. 1-5 and [0011] of Goel, where the AI system will train a call which is convert to text by “speech to text engine” and feature vectors are extracted and fed though different layers of the NN)
Choi and Gordon and Goel are analogous art because both references concern parsing data received for keywords/tokens that is desired by the user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Choi’s speech to text conversion method which allow the device to display some keywords with triggering different functions of selectable keywords as taught by Gordon and processing call speech via an NN as taught by Goel. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively combine different data easily and more accurately to save user time and effort when it comes to multiple source of documents/keywords using NN.
Referring to claims 9 and 19, Choi and Gordon and Goel disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the at least one keyword from among the call voice comprises identifying the at least one keyword from among the call voice using the trained AI model. ([0227] of Choi, data learner and the data recognizer are using artificial intelligence. [0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon and as disclosed in [0011] of Goel with training speech via NN)
Referring to claim 21, Choi and Gordon and Goel disclose the electronic device of The electronic device of wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determining the calendar application among a plurality of applications of the electronic device based on the at least one keyword including at least one of the time, the person, or the place, and wherein the schedule associated with the at least one keyword is registered in the calendar application by executing the calendar application. ([0227] of Choi, data learner and the data recognizer are using artificial intelligence. [0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon)
Referring to claim 22, Choi and Gordon ad Goel disclose the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the UI element comprises information on the at least one of the time, the person, or the place associated with the schedule. ([0029] of Gordon, “An example can include dates and times as being highly relevant to a calendar application. Other confidence rankings depend on the particular algorithm used in the application.”)
Referring to claim 23, Choi and Gordon and Goel disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the calendar application among a plurality of applications of the electronic device based on the at least one keyword including at least one of the time, the person, or the place, wherein the schedule associated with the at least one keyword is registered in the calendar application by executing the calendar application. ([0227] of Choi, data learner and the data recognizer are using artificial intelligence. [0006] of Gordon, “ For example, a phone conversation can be monitored and converted into text data. Based on the text data, a list of possible actions can be generated. Words of the conversation can be used to generate typical actions. One or more actions can then be displayed in a list for ease of user viewing. User selection of an action can result in launching of the associated application.” And also Figs. 5-8 and [0030]-[0033] of Gordon)
Referring to claim 24, Choi and Gordon and Goel disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the UI element comprises information on the at least one of the time, the person, or the place associated with the schedule. ([0029] of Gordon, “An example can include dates and times as being highly relevant to a calendar application. Other confidence rankings depend on the particular algorithm used in the application.”)
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20180181922 A1) in view of Gordon et al (US 20130144610 A1) and in view of Goel et al (US 20180308487 A1).
Referring to claims 10 and 20, Choi and Gordon and Goel disclose the method of claim 1. Choi and Gordon and Goel do not specifically disclose “wherein, based on the call having ended, the calendar application is determined as a recommended application among a plurality of applications of the electronic device based on the obtained at least one keyword.”
However, Duva discloses further comprising: based on a call with the user of the other electronic device being ended, determining a recommended application among a plurality of applications of the electronic device based on the obtained at least one keyword; and displaying a UI for asking whether to perform a task associated with the determined recommended application and the obtained at least one keyword ([0136], [0305]- [0306] of Duva discloses a post-call option for the user to select, e.g., UI for user to select to perform a function, such as schedule an appointment, set a reminder/alert, etc.. where the user can use pre-recorded options to answer the user, such as using keywords submodule to detect certain keywords after the call from the consumer)
Choi and Gordon and Goel and Duva are analogous art because both references concern parsing data received for keywords/tokens that is desired by the user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Choi’s speech to text conversion method which allow the device to display some keywords with triggering different functions of selectable keywords as taught by Gordon and Goel with allow post-call recommendations to finish up task that can be optional for the user for any unfinished questions as taught by Duva. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide better and more efficient service to the user to provide post-call customer service that can be automated based on keywords inputted to further help the customers with their questions, and also save human resources such as wasting real agent’s time.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al (US 20190332345 A1): An electronic device is disclosed. The electronic device comprises: a communicator for communicating with a server storing information on a plurality of short clips and storing keywords by the plurality of short clips; an outputter; an inputter; and a processor which, when a voice uttered by a user is received via the inputter, transmits a short clip request signal to the server, on the basis of a keyword included in the received uttered voice and information on content outputted from the outputter, and outputs a short clip via the outputter, on the basis of information on the short clip received from the server in response to the request signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights