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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 2 - 3 and 13 – 14 have been canceled. Claim 24 have been added. Claims 1, 4 – 12 and 15 – 24 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 12 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
The Office asserts these claims can be read as mental processes. However, as amended, the claims recite actively controlling a measurement application device. These claim steps cannot be performed mentally. As such, Applicant submits the claims do not recite an Abstract idea, and thus satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
To rebut this argument, in the Final Office Action, the Office states "[t]he action of controlling a measurement application device is considered as an additional element after step 2A prong 1 test. However, it is considered as an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Just as after a person listened some command, he/she can follow the command to perform a control. The limitation is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea." FOA, pg. 3. Respectfully, the Applicant points out that the Office has mischaracterized Step 2A prong 1 with Step 2A prong 2. The Applicant argues that the claims cannot be characterized as a mental process, and thus, satisfies Step 2A prong 1. In rebuttal, the Office cites to MPEP 2106.05(g) but this has no bearing to Step 2A prong 1. Indeed, MPEP 2106.05(g) explicitly states "Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Pronq Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception." The Office cannot rebut an argument directed to Step 2A prong one using a consideration corresponding to Step 2A prong two. The Office must first show claim 1 can be characterized as one of the enumerated judicial exceptions (i.e., Mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) before considering whether a claim limitation amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The Office cannot "skip over" claim elements during the Step 2A prong one analysis. Because the Office has not explained how "[t]he action of controlling a measurement application device" can be interpreted as a mental process, Applicant continues to submit that the claims satisfy Step 2A prong one of the Alice framework.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For the limitation of “control the at least one measurement application device based on the generated at least one control command, wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals”, it can be interpreted as the person can start to control the measurement application device based on the command and confirmation, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as managing personal behavior. Thus, it is categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Therefore, claims 1, 4 – 12 and 15– 24 are still rejected as 101.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4 – 12 and 15 – 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a natural language interface”, “a natural language converter”, “a command visualizer”, “a confirmation interface”, “a device control interface”, “a trigger interface” and “an algorithm trainer” in claims 1 and 4 – 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “interface”, “converter”, “visualizer” and “trainer” coupled with functional language “receive”, “convert”, “visualize”, “control”, and “re-train” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 and 4 – 10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the Specification discloses the physical structure about above units can be part of a processing unit or a microcontroller ([0026] in publication).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 4 – 12 and 15– 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1 and 12:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 12 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 12 are directed an idea for confirming a control command, which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
The claims in the instant application include:
A measurement application device control system comprising:
a natural language interface configured to receive a natural language task statement;
a natural language converter coupled to the natural language interface, and configured to convert the natural language task statement into at least one control command for at least one measurement application device;
a command visualizer coupled to the natural language converter and configured to visualize the generated at least one control command; and
a confirmation interface configured to receive a confirmation signal indicating that the generated at least one control command represents the received natural language task statement; and
a device control interface configured to control the at least one measurement application device based on the generated at least one control command,
wherein the device control interface is configured to control the at least one measurement application device after a respective execution command is received via at least one of the natural language interface and the confirmation interface, wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals.
For the limitation of “receive a natural language task statement”, it can be interpreted as a person in a video conversation, the other party request for control a measurement device, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as mental processes.
For the limitation of “convert the natural language task statement into at least one control command for at least one measurement application device”, it can be interpreted as the person can write down what he/she heard into a paper, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as mental processes.
For the limitation of “visualize the generated at least one control command”, it can be interpreted as the person can show his/her writing down to the other party through video conversation, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as mental processes.
For the limitation of “receive a confirmation signal indicating that the generated at least one control command represents the received natural language task statement”, it can be interpreted as the other party can confirm the writing down command represents his/her meaning, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as mental processes.
For the limitation of “control the at least one measurement application device based on the generated at least one control command, wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals”, it can be interpreted as the person can start to control the measurement application device based on the command and confirmation, the claimed limitation can be broadly read as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
a control system; and interfaces, units as part of processor (claims 1 – 11);
A control system, and interfaces, units are general computer elements.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the above recited additional elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include a device; a processor; a non-transitory recording medium. The additional elements (e.g., a control system; and interfaces, units) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., a control system; and interfaces, units) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 4 – 11 and 15 – 24, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1 and 12, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1 and 12, wherein limitations regarding “receive …”, “convert …”, “comprising …”, “re-train or fine-tune …”, “display …”, “does not cause …” and/or “is received … before …” is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1 and 12 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 – 17 and 20 – 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0197985) in view of Bai et al. (China Patent Application Publication CN 113409780), hereinafter referred as Bai, and in further view of Hama et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0242489), hereinafter referred as Hama.
Regarding claim 1, Narayanaswami discloses an application device control system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a natural language interface configured to receive a natural language task statement (Fig. 6A 611, [0097], “to receive via a microphone or via communication circuitry, a voice command indicative of an insulin delivery action to be taken by an automated insulin delivery application.”);
a natural language converter coupled to the natural language interface, and configured to convert the natural language task statement into at least one control command for at least one application device (Fig. 6A. 621, [0097], “At 621, the sound chip circuitry may determine the received voice command corresponds to an identified insulin delivery action to be taken by the automated insulin delivery application. For example, the sound chip circuitry may utilize natural language processing (described in the examples below) to recognize keywords or conversational phrases. The natural language processing may provide a recognition result that a voice control application of the sound chip circuitry may use to determine a corresponding insulin delivery action”);
a command visualizer coupled to the natural language converter and configured to visualize the generated at least one control command (Fig. 6A. 631, [0097], “The corresponding insulin delivery action may be presented visually to a display of a portable electronic device, … for consideration by the user. A confirmation request may be output (631) visually to a display of a portable electronic device, …”); and
a confirmation interface configured to receive a confirmation signal indicating that the generated at least one control command represents the received natural language task statement (Fig. 6A. 641, [0097], “At 641, the sound chip circuitry may be operable to monitor for receipt of the confirmation response, which may be a keyword audio input, which is a response to the confirmation request. Examples of a confirmation response using keyword audio inputs is described in more detail with reference to the examples of FIGS. 6B-16.”); and
a device control interface configured to control the at least one measurement application device based on the generated at least one control command ([0097], “Fig. 6A. 621, [0097], “At 621, the sound chip circuitry may determine the received voice command corresponds to an identified insulin delivery action to be taken by the automated insulin delivery application”. “In response to receipt of a keyword audio input as the confirmation response confirming the insulin delivery action, the sound chip circuitry may enable the insulin delivery action to be taken by the automated insulin delivery application (651). The sound chip circuitry may enable the insulin delivery action, in one example, by forwarding a signal representing the corresponding insulin delivery action to an AID application for execution.”);
wherein the device control interface is configured to control the at least one measurement application device after a respective execution command is received via at least one of the natural language interface and the confirmation interface ([0097], “In response to receipt of a keyword audio input as the confirmation response confirming the insulin delivery action, the sound chip circuitry may enable the insulin delivery action to be taken by the automated insulin delivery application (651).” The Examiner interpreted the confirmation response performs two rolls: 1) as a confirmation signal, 2) as an execution command).
However, Narayanaswami fails to explicitly disclose the at least one application device is at least one measurement application device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Bai discloses a voice control system (abstract). In addition, Bai discloses that the voice control system is applied to measuring instrument (abstract).
Substituting voice control for application device to voice control for measurement application device were known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one know element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (KSR scenario B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Narayanaswami, and using the voice control system for measurement instrument. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Narayanaswami can be broadened to other fields.
However, Narayanaswami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device control interface is configured to control the at least one measurement application device after a respective execution command is received via at least one of the natural language interface and the confirmation interface, wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Hama discloses a computer control interface (Fig. 9). In addition, Hama discloses that the interface controls execution after a respective execution command is received via at least one interface (Fig. 9, [0107, 0112], execution is performed after execution button 905 is clicked); wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals (Fig. 9, confirmation button 904 and the execution button 905 are different buttons).
There was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.
There was reasonable expectation of success to achieve claimed limitation by modifying the reference or to combining reference teachings (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Narayanaswami, and control the at least one measurement application device after a respective execution command is received via at least one of the natural language interface and the confirmation interface wherein the confirmation signal and the execution command are different signals. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Narayanaswami can be better controlled by addition permission whether the command should be executed.
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami discloses the system further comprising a trigger interface configured to receive a trigger signal and activate the natural language interface after receiving the trigger signal ([0100], activation keyword).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami discloses the system wherein the natural language interface comprises an audio interface and an audio converter that is coupled to the audio interface and that is configured to convert a received audio signal into a statement representation that is processable by the natural language converter (Fig. 6A. 621, [0097], “At 621, the sound chip circuitry may determine the received voice command corresponds to an identified insulin delivery action to be taken by the automated insulin delivery application. For example, the sound chip circuitry may utilize natural language processing (described in the examples below) to recognize keywords or conversational phrases. The natural language processing may provide a recognition result that a voice control application of the sound chip circuitry may use to determine a corresponding insulin delivery action”).
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami discloses the system wherein the natural language interface or the confirmation interface is configured to receive a correction command, and wherein the natural language converter is configured to re-generate the at least one control command based on the received correction command ([0105], when “No” is received, the control command will be re-generated).
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami discloses the system further comprising a display device configured to display a representation of the generated at least one control command (Fig. 6A. 631, [0097], “The corresponding insulin delivery action may be presented visually to a display of a portable electronic device, … for consideration by the user. A confirmation request may be output (631) visually to a display of a portable electronic device, …”).
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 9), Narayanaswami discloses the system wherein the representation of the generated at least one control command comprises at least one of a text representation, a flow diagram, or a block diagram (Fig. 6A. 631, [0097], “The corresponding insulin delivery action may be presented visually to a display of a portable electronic device, … for consideration by the user. A confirmation request may be output (631) visually to a display of a portable electronic device, …”; also [0103 – 0104], voice to text representation).
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami discloses the system further comprising a central processing element (Fig. 1, #119), wherein at least one of the natural language interface, the natural language converter, the command visualizer, and the confirmation interface are at least in part provided as computer programs comprising computer readable instructions that are executed by the central processing element (Fig. 1, memory #118 stores program; also [0154]).
Regarding claims 12, 15 – 17 and 20 – 21, they are corresponding to claims 1, 4 – 6 and 9 – 10, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 1, 4 – 6 and 9 – 10.
Regarding claim 22 (depends on claim 1), Hama discloses the system wherein the confirmation signal does not cause the at least one measurement application device to execute the at least one control command (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 23, it is corresponding to claim 22, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 22.
Regarding claim 24 (depends on claim 1), Hama discloses the system wherein the confirmation signal is received at the confirmation interface before the execution command is received via at least one of the natural language interface and the confirmation interface (Fig. 9, user can click confirmation button 904 first, then click execution button 905 afterwards).
Claim(s) 7 – 8 and 18 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami in view of Bai, in further view of Hama and Malhotra et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0020319), hereinafter referred as Malhotra.
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 1), Narayanaswami fails to explicitly disclose the system wherein the natural language converter comprises an algorithm that comprises at least one of an artificial-intelligence-based algorithm, and a trained algorithm.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Malhotra discloses a voice recognition system (abstract). In addition, Malhotra discloses that comprises at least one of an artificial-intelligence-based algorithm, and a trained algorithm ([0027, 0056 - 0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Narayanaswami, and comprises at least one of an artificial-intelligence-based algorithm, and a trained algorithm. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Narayanaswami can be more powerful to process speech recognition.
Regarding claim 8 (depends on claim 7), Malhotra discloses the system further comprising an algorithm trainer, wherein the natural language interface is configured to receive a correction command, and the algorithm trainer is configured to re-train or fine-tune the algorithm based on the correction command ([0086]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, they are corresponding to claims 7 and 8, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 7 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677