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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 12, 7, 17, 11 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, the phrase “the recognition result”, lines 4 – 5, lacks clear antecedent basis. “The first recognition result” is recited in claim 1, not” the recognition result”.
Claim 7, lines 6 -7, the phrase “the server command” lacks clear antecedent basis. It should read “the server command information.
Claim 11, line 22, the phrase “the voice command” lacks clear antecedent basis. It should read “the first voice command”.
Claim 12, lines 3-4, the phrase “the recognition result” lacks clear antecedent basis. It should read “the first recognition result”.
Claim 17, line 6, the phrase “the server command” lacks clear antecedent basis. It should probably read “the server command information”.
Claims 4, 13, 14 and 20 incorporate the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend and are therefore rejected under 112(b).
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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to and abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “a voice data receiving component, configured to receive voice data from a user;” “a voice recognition component, configured to perform voice recognition on the voice data and outputting a first recognition result;” “a determination component, configured to determine whether a first voice command corresponding to the first recognition result exists in a database of the receiving device;” “a server data receiving component, configured to acquire information of the database from a server based on a determination result from the determination component;” “the plurality of local instructions corresponding to the first voice command are configured to output to the user in an order of priorities;” “when the first local instruction is associated with a plurality of server recognition results, select at least one server recognition result from the plurality of server recognition results based on an extraction condition, wherein the extraction condition is determined based on a number of times the voice command is received, and the extraction condition at least comprises an usage frequency and/or priorities of command processing;” “establish a corresponding relationship between the at least one selected server recognition result and the first local instruction, and store the corresponding relationship in the database;” and “count a usage frequency of each voice command received by the voice recognition component, and based on the counted usage frequency, extract information of at least one first local instruction from data in the server.”
The above-recited limitations are directed to collecting, analyzing, and outputting information and to evaluating information, comparing information, selecting information based on criteria, and outputting a result. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (STEP 2A , Prong 1).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 17 recite, inter alia: “in response to the determination component determining no first voice command corresponding to the recognition result exists in the database, output a voice recognition request and the voice data to the server, and receive server command information, wherein the voice recognition request is used for requesting the server to perform voice recognition on the voice data, the server command information comprises a corresponding server recognition result and a second local instruction associated with the corresponding server recognition result, and the server recognition result is obtained by the server performing the voice recognition on the voice data;”
“storing information of the second local instruction and the corresponding server recognition result in the database;”
“in response to the server command information for the first voice command being a fixed reply to the first voice command, set a first buffering indication for indicating that buffering a server command is to be performed;”
“in response to the server command information for the first voice command being not a fixed reply, set a second buffering indication for indicating that the server command is not buffered.”
Claims 3, 10, 13, and 20 recite, inter alia:
“output the information of the first local instruction based on the determination result from the determination component;”
“the plurality of local instructions associated with the first voice command are output to the user according to information relevant to the receiving device and common data of the receiving device;”
“outputting the first local instruction for command execution of the first voice command.”
These additional limitations are also directed to information handling, selection, storage and output. They do not alter the abstract character of the claim set.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (SETP 2A, Prong 2). The recitation of “a voice data receiving component,” “a communication component,” “a voice recognition component,” “a determination component,” “a server data receiving component,” and “a database operation component,” are recited only in functional terms.
The claims do not recite any particular technological implementation for “perform voice recognition on the voice data and outputting a first recognition result;” “determine whether a first voice command corresponding to the first recognition result exists in a database of the receiving device;” “acquire information of the database from a server based on a determination result from the determination component;” “select at least one server recognition result from the plurality of server recognition results based on an extraction condition;” “establish a corresponding relationship between the at least one selected server recognition result and the first local instruction, and store the corresponding relationship in the database;” or “set a first buffering indication” / “set a second buffering indication.”
The additional limitations concerning “an order of priorities,” “an extraction condition,” “an usage frequency and/or priorities of command processing,” “a corresponding relationship,” “a fixed reply,” and “buffering a server command” are rules for processing information. These limitations do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, voice recognition functionality, database functionality, or network communication functionality.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited as generic functional components and routine operations, including: “receive voice data from a user;” “perform voice recognition on the voice data;” “determine whether a first voice command corresponding to the first recognition result exists in a database;” “acquire information of the database from a server;” “store the corresponding relationship in the database;” “output to the user in an order of priorities;” “set a first buffering indication;” “set a second buffering indication.”
These additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite a specific machine, a particular transformation, or any other element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B)’
Claim 11 is similar in scope and content to claim 1 above and recites the same abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or include significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the 101 rejection (abstract idea) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims over the prior art of record, including Kim et al (Patent Number 9,582,245), because taken alone or in combination, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed combination of: maintaining a database of local instructions corresponding to a first voice command, selecting at least one server recognition result based on an extraction condition tied to usage frequency and/or command-processing priorities, establishing a corresponding relationship between the selected server recognition result and the first local instruction, and using that relationship to extract and output local instruction information from server data.
Kim et al. generally disclose a voice-command list and server fallback processing, but it does not disclose the claimed instruction selection framework or the claimed frequency and priority based extraction logic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vatland, 7,590534, describes a system and method for processing voice data associated with an application form. The system receives voice data, translates it into text data, and returns the text data to the application so it can be associated with the correct form using identifier information. In short, Vatland is focused on voice-to-text transcription and form association in a client/server workflow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHEMOND DORVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-7602. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights