DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 05/25/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 05/25/2023 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claim(s) recite(s) “A method comprising:
(a) playing, by a media output device media content comprising a first prompt that instructs a user to interact with an interactive device associated with a speech recognizer by speaking a predefined action phrase;
(b) determining, using the speech recognizer associated with the interactive device, whether a user has spoken the predefined action phrase; and
(c) in accordance with determining that the user has spoken a predefined action phrase; performing an action according to the user's spoken action phrase”. These may be practically performed in the human mind using pen and paper. For example, limitations (a)-(c) can be done by evaluation and judgement, where a person determines by auditory observation on an audio result evaluation of a predefined prompt audio message and recognizes content in that predefined prompt audio message in the form of “spoken the predefined action phrase” and writes it down as “performing an action according to the user's spoken action phrase.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions “playing”, “determining”, “performing” encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong one).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “…a media output device…” (b) “…interactive device…” which are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Further, limitations (a) and (b) are recited as being performed by a computing device potentially including at least one processor. The computing device is described as any generic computer device (Specification, see e.g., para. 11 “…a device is provided with one or more processors and a memory storing one or more computer programs that include instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors…”) The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations (a) and (b), the computing device potentially including at least one processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of a computing device including at least one processor to perform limitations (a) and (b) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Limitations (a), (b), and (c) are considered mere data gathering and output, and are additionally well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The remaining dependent claims fail to add patent eligible subject matter to their respective parent claims:
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 regard a human performing interactive data gathering on pen and paper, writing down information on the people that asked a question (e.g., prompt), and presenting a rewritten question to a crowd of other people to seek their approval.
Claims 4, 14 regard writing down spoken information, mentally processing text for understanding the claimed interactive information based upon knowledge of a natural language, and mentally evaluating the intent/purpose of the question (e.g., prompt).
Claims 5, 6, 15, 16 regard also writing down spoken information, mentally processing text for understanding the claimed interactive information based upon knowledge of a natural language, and mentally evaluating the intent/purpose of the question (e.g., prompt).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 regard also writing down spoken information (e.g., found in video format, broadcast media content, a streamed media content) mentally processing text for understanding the claimed interactive information based upon knowledge of a natural language, and mentally evaluating the intent/purpose of the question (e.g., prompt).
Claim 20 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention appears not be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, claim 20 appears to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-20 in the present Application ‘693 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent: 9,978,366, Claims 1-42 of U.S. Patent: 10,475,453, Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent: 10,706,849, and over Claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent: 11,699,436.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale. By comparing independent Claims 1 and 11 in the current App. ‘693 with Claims 1, 10, 19, 21, 31, and 41 of U.S. Patent: ‘366; Claims 1, 18, and 33 of U.S. Patent: ‘453; Claims 1, and 10 of U.S. Patent: ‘849; and Claims 1, 8, 16, and 23 in the U.S. Patent: ‘436 individually and correspondingly, several similarities and overlapping limitations are found.
The mentioned independent Claims 1 and 11 in the current App. ‘693 when compared to Claims 1, 10, 19, 21, 31, and 41 of U.S. Patent: ‘366; Claims 1, 18, and 33 of U.S. Patent: ‘453; Claims 1, and 10 of U.S. Patent: ‘849; and Claims 1, 8, 16, and 23 of U.S. Patent” ‘436 individually and correspondingly are obvious variants featuring similar functionalities. Dependent Claims 2-10; and 12-20 also follow the same rationale as to corresponding independent Claims 1 and 11 and thus is(are) also rejected on the same reasons with regards to ground(s) of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting, and due to their further dependency.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious to eliminate, substitute, and/or add limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): “Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Istvan et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication: 2006/00411926), already of record, hereinafter referred to as ISTVAN.
With respect to Claim 1, ISTVAN discloses:
1. A system comprising: a media output device configured to play media content (See e.g., one or more processors and devices with memory and computer executable instructions, and methods, and content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4) comprising a first prompt that instructs a user to interact with an interactive device associated with a speech recognizer by speaking a predefined action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4); one or more processors storing one or more computer programs that include computer instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system (See e.g., one or more processors and devices with memory and computer executable instructions, and methods, and content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 400-403 Figs. 3, 4) to: determine, using the speech recognizer associated with the interactive device, whether a user has spoken the predefined action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4); and in accordance with a determination that the user has spoken a predefined action phrase, perform an action according to the user's spoken action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 2, ISTVAN discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the media output device comprises the interactive device (See e.g., one or more processors and devices with memory and computer executable instructions, and methods, and con tent presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 3, ISTVAN discloses:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the interactive device is separate from the media output device (See e.g., Fig. 3 offers an architecture layout with separate media device(s) and content metadata 494, external content 490, stored content 492, in association with relevant state information for content presentation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 40-46, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 4, ISTVAN discloses:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the prompt comprises a wakeup word associated with the interactive device (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 5, ISTVAN discloses:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the speech recognizer associated with the interactive device is activated upon the user speaking the wakeup word (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24--36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 6, ISTVAN discloses:
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the prompt does not include a wakeup word associated with the interactive device (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 7, ISTVAN discloses:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the media content comprises interactive content in video format (See e.g., video format content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 8, ISTVAN discloses:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the media content comprises broadcast media content (See e.g., broadcast media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 9, ISTVAN discloses:
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the media content comprises streamed media content (See e.g., streamed media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 10, ISTVAN discloses:
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the media content is associated with metadata comprising instructions for performing the action according to the action phrase, and the metadata is either supplied from a content provider along with the media content or supplied separately from an external source (See e.g., Fig. 3 offering an architecture layout with separate media device(s) and content metadata 494, external content 490, stored content 492, in association with relevant state information for content presentation, and in agreement with using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-36, 40-46, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 11, ISTVAN discloses:
11. A method (See e.g., one or more processors and devices with memory and computer executable instructions, and methods, and content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4) comprising: playing, by a media output device media content comprising a first prompt that instructs a user to interact with an interactive device associated with a speech recognizer by speaking a predefined action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4); determining, using the speech recognizer associated with the interactive device, whether a user has spoken the predefined action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4); and in accordance with determining that the user has spoken a predefined action phrase, performing an action according to the user's spoken action phrase (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 12, ISTVAN discloses:
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the media output device comprises the interactive device(See e.g., one or more processors and devices with memory and computer executable instructions, and methods, and con tent presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 13, ISTVAN discloses:
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the interactive device is separate from the media output device(See e.g., Fig. 3 offers an architecture layout with separate media device(s) and content metadata 494, external content 490, stored content 492, in association with relevant state information for content presentation, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-33, 40-46, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 14, ISTVAN discloses:
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the prompt comprises a wakeup word associated with the interactive device (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 15, ISTVAN discloses:
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the speech recognizer associated with the interactive device is activated upon the user speaking the wakeup word (See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24--36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 16, ISTVAN discloses:
16. The method of claim 11, wherein the prompt does not include a wakeup word associated with the interactive device(See e.g., using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 17, ISTVAN discloses:
17. The method of claim 11, wherein the media content comprises interactive content in video format (See e.g., video format content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 18, ISTVAN discloses:
18. The method of claim 11, wherein the media content comprises broadcast media content (See e.g., broadcast media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 19, ISTVAN discloses:
19. The method of claim 11, wherein the media content comprises streamed media content (See e.g., streamed media content capabilities, ISTVAN ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 29-36, Figs. 3, 4).
With respect to Claim 20, ISTVAN discloses:
20. The method of claim 11, wherein the media content is associated with metadata comprising instructions for performing the action according to the action phrase, and the metadata is either supplied from a content provider along with the media content or supplied separately from an external source (See e.g., Fig. 3 offering an architecture layout with separate media device(s) and content metadata 494, external content 490, stored content 492, in association with relevant state information for content presentation, and in agreement with using speech recognition processing capabilities used in detecting media content and also content presentation control system 400 with monitoring media content capabilities with voice commands and voice annotations in association with multiple pieces of content and operation, and continued operation capabilities via remote control operations as voice commands and active searches performed as actions, ISTVAN ¶¶ 26-36, 40-46, 400-403, Figs. 3, 4).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jordan et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication: 2017/0111702), discloses, see e.g., “…a global speech user interface (GSUI) comprises an input system to receive a user's spoken command, a feedback system along with a set of feedback overlays to give the user information
PNG
media_image1.png
295
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on the progress of his spoken requests, a set of visual cues on the television screen to help the user understand what he can say, a help system, and a model for navigation among applications. The interface is extensible to make it easy to add new applications…” (See e.g., Jordan et al., Abstract, Fig. 1).
Please, see PTO-892 for more details.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Edgar Guerra-Erazo whose telephone number is (571) 270-3708. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on (571) 272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
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.
/EDGAR X GUERRA-ERAZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656