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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/25 has been entered.
This office action is in response to correspondence 11/25/25 regarding application 18/362,510, in which claims 1 and 11 were amended. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-23 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with Applicant on page 8 that no new matter is added via the amendments to claims 1 and 11.
Applicant argues on pages 9-12 that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn because the claims do not recite the rejection’s alleged exception, the claims reflect a particular solution, and because the rejection should not be considered “more likely than not” based on page 5 of the USPTO August 4, 2024 Memorandum on subject matter eligibility.
In particular, on pages 10-11, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process exception because the “display”, “voice input receiver” and “perform a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model” allegedly cannot be performed as a mental process. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted in the rejection “a display” can be created by writing or drawing with a pen on a piece of paper and holding it up for display. A “voice input receiver” correspond to the human ears, which are routinely used to listen to other humans speak and mentally recognize and process the voice sound pressure waves which are “input” into the ears. Finally, a “natural language model” can simply be a list of natural language commands written on a piece of paper indicated which sequences are allowed and which corresponding apparatus functions they map to. There are no limitations in the amended claims that cannot be practically performed as a mental process and/or with a pen and paper.
On pages 11-14, Applicant further argues that the claims provide a technological solution that is rooted in computer technology for implementing voice commands that addresses an existing natural language processing system as described in paragraphs 2-15 of the original specification, namely, difficulty in processing a complex command.
In response, the examiner is not persuaded. There is nothing in claim 1, for example, particular to voice command technology to the extent that the claim provides a technological solution that is rooted in computer technology. For example, while the claims as amended do mention the function performed is “corresponding to” a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model, the voice recognition as particularly claimed does not rule out voice recognition as a mental process based on a natural language model printed on a sheet of paper, for example, a list of natural language commands showing appropriate sequences and mapped to corresponding electronic apparatus commands. The claim as a whole relates to generic voice commands, and merely controls an output of a second function differently according to whether a second function is sequentially performable after performing a first function, which humans have done for centuries as a mental process.
On pages 12-14, Applicant further argues that the claims contain a practical application that provides a technology capable of improving accuracy and performance of a natural language processing system in a voice command technology, citing several paragraphs from the original specification that discuss performance improvements.
However, the examiner is not persuaded that the claims contain a practical application because there do not appear to be any elements present in the actual claim language that plainly provide a technology capable of improving accuracy and performance of a natural language processing system in a voice command technology. Instead, the claims are directed to steps which but for the recitation of generic computer components, can be performed as a mental process or with a pen and paper as detailed in the rejections below. With regard to claim 1 in particular, the additional elements – “a display”, “a voice input receiver” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general purpose display, general purpose voice input receiver, and general purpose processor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Based on the above, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the rejection should not be considered “more likely than not” based on page 5 of the USPTO August 4, 2024 Memorandum on subject matter eligibility.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Neuberger, Lagassey, Klein, and Johnson have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection based in part on the newly cited reference to Gruber et al. (US 20150348551), which discloses a voice recognition of multi-part commands from a user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model (user data and models include natural language processing models, [0082], [0211], Fig 7A element 732, and the recognition result from a multi-part command is passed to natural language processing module for intent deduction, i.e. recognizing intent from the user’s voice signal, [0214], [0220], e.g. “Navigate to Jessica’s house and send her a message that I’m on my way”, Fig 9, [0248]), similarly to the amended language of independent claims 1 and 11.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-17 that Rohani does not disclose “based on the first function and the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions” have been considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Rohani merely discloses a configuration of uttering word command sin order, but does not disclose determining whether consecutive functions are performable as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rohani discloses the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions because Rohani specifically describes determining whether a sequence of word commands, such as “RADIO”, “CHANNEL”, “ONE” is a valid sequence, and informing the user by synthesized speech if an invalid sequence is uttered, page 4 lines 26-29, page 5 lines 23-25. Rohani determines whether the second command in the command sequence is able to be sequentially performed or not based on hierarchical command structure 200 which has three levels defining available command paths, i.e. sequentially performable functions that are valid sequences, pages 7-8, lines 7-18.
Applicant’s arguments on page 20 regarding independent claim 11, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-23, are similar to those addressed above regarding claim 1, and are not persuasive for similar reasons.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data about sequentially performable functions" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 7-8 mentions “a data obtained from a natural language model”, it is unclear whether "the data about sequentially performable functions" is referring to this particular data obtained from the natural language model.
Claim 11 recites the same limitation in line 11, which lacks proper antecedent basis for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19-23 include the indefinite subject matter of respective parent claims 1 and 11 without remedying it, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to reciting generic computer components, the claim recites “receive a user voice input corresponding to performing of a function of the electronic apparatus through the voice input receiver, and perform a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model, the voice input including a first voice command corresponding to a first function and a second voice command corresponding to a second function; based on the first function being able to be performed according to the data, control to output a result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display, and based on the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions, control to output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function”.
The limitation of receive a user voice input corresponding to performing of a function of the electronic apparatus through the voice input receiver, and perform a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model, the voice input including a first voice command corresponding to a first function and a second voice command corresponding to a second function, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receive a user voice input corresponding to performing of a function of the electronic apparatus through the voice input receiver, and perform a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model, the voice input including a first voice command corresponding to a first function and a second voice command corresponding to a second function” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a user uttering a sequence of commands such as “open the dryer door and start the dryer”, and writing the two commands down on a sheet of paper within a list of modeled natural language commands to look for matches to a first command and second command. The examiner notes that while the function performed is “corresponding to” a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model, the voice recognition as particularly claimed does not rule out voice recognition as a mental process based on a natural language model printed on a sheet of paper, for example, a list of natural language commands showing appropriate sequences and mapped to corresponding electronic apparatus commands.
Similarly, the limitation of “based on the first function being able to be performed according to the data, control to output a result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “based on the first function being able to be performed according to the data, control to output a result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display” in the context of this claim encompasses the user drawing a sign with a pen and paper that says “dryer door open” and holding the paper up for display.
Similarly, the limitation of “based on the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions, control to output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “based on the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions, control to output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function” in the context of this claim encompasses the user either consulting the data on the sheet of paper, and additionally writing on the sign “dryer started” or “cannot start dryer” based on whether the dryer will start with the door open, and holding up the paper for display. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites three additional elements – “a display”, “a voice input receiver” and “a processor”. The computing devices in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general purpose display, general purpose voice input receiver, and general purpose processor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic apparatus to perform the receiving and controlling amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of controlling output of a result based on whether a second function is performable after performing a first function, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 merely recite additional steps for controlling output of a result based on whether a second function is performable after performing a first function, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing words with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “ based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to the second function not being able to be performed” which could be performed by the user either additionally writing on the sign “cannot start dryer”, and holding up the paper for display.
Claim 3 recites “ based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to an inquiry regarding whether only the first function can be performed” which could be performed by the user either additionally writing on “cannot start dryer. Why? because door is open” and holding up the paper for display.
Claim 4 recites “ based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, perform only the first function” which could be performed by only opening the dryer door.
Claim 5 recites “based on the second function being able to be performed after performing the first function, perform the second function after performing the first function” which could be performed by opening the dryer door, closing the dryer door, then starting the dryer.
Claim 6 recites “perform the first function and the second function in an order of being received according to the user voice input” which could be performed by opening the dryer door, closing the dryer door, then starting the dryer.
Claim 7 recites “perform the second function based on information corresponding to the first function” which could be performed by opening the dryer door, closing the dryer door, then starting the dryer, based on information in an appliance manual that the dryer will only start with the door shut.
Claim 9 recites “the user voice input comprises a plurality of sentences corresponding to different languages from one another” which could be performed by listening to the user state “abre la puerta de la secadora and start the dryer”.
Claim 10 recites “ wherein the plurality of sentences are sentences in forms of compound sentences connected with conjunctions” which could be performed by listening to the user state “open the dryer door and start the dryer”.
Claim 21 recites “…output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function and the first function are sequentially performable”, which in the context of this claim, encompasses the user either additionally writing on the sign “dryer started” or “cannot start dryer after opening door” based on whether the dryer can be started after the door is opened, and holding up the paper for display.
Claim 22 recites “…output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function as an order of occurrence of a first sentence and a second sentence in a complex sentence including in the user voice input, the first sentence corresponding to the first function and the second sentence corresponding to the second function”, which in the context of this claim, encompasses the user either additionally writing on the sign “dryer started” or “cannot start dryer after opening door” based on whether the dryer can be started after the door is opened, and holding up the paper for display, in response to the complex command “open the dryer door and start the dryer”.
Claim 23 recites “…a complex sentence included in the user voice input is divided into a first sentence and a second sentence further based a named entity recognition process using the natural language model” which in the context of this claim, encompasses mentally dividing a complex sentence into two sentences by mentally recognizing named entities in the sentences using a mental natural language model.
In sum, claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a method that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set for the above with respect to claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, because the method claim does not recite any additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 depend from claim 11, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 11, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 11 above.
The subject matter of dependent claims 12-17 and 19-20 corresponds to that of claims 2-7, and 9-10 respectively, and these claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 11 for the same reasons claims 2-7, and 9-10 fail to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1. These dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons to those explained above with respect to dependent claims 2-7, and 9-10.
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 of this title, 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, 4-7, 11, 12, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuberger et al. (US 20040153322) in view of Gruber et al. (US 20150348551) in further view of Johnson (US 10013983), in further view of Rohani et al. (WO 91/13431).
Johnson has priority to provisional application No. 62/200,416, filed Aug. 3, 2015. The cited portions of US 10013983 in this office action are all entirely supported by the original disclosure in provisional application No. 62/200,416, filed Aug. 3, 2015, and therefore Johnson is considered to be prior art.
Consider claim 1, Neuberger discloses an electronic apparatus (IVR system, [0016], Fig 1) comprising:
a voice input receiver (telephones 14, [0021], Fig 1); and
a processor (processor within connected computer 12 administering the IVR system, [0021], Fig 1) configured to:
receive a user voice input corresponding to performing of a function of the electronic apparatus through the voice input receiver, and perform a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained, the user voice input including a first voice command corresponding to a first function and a second voice command corresponding to a second function for a voice recognition (user speaks “greetings, record” , which causes the device to perform a “record” function based on the received commands, Fig 4, [0029]).
Neuberger does not specifically mention a display; a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model; output a result on the display.
Gruber discloses a display (display 1030, Fig 11); a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model (user data and models include natural language processing models, [0082], [0211], Fig 7A element 732, and the recognition result from a multi-part command is passed to natural language processing module for intent deduction, i.e. recognizing intent from the user’s voice signal, [0214], [0220], e.g. “Navigate to Jessica’s house and send her a message that I’m on my way”, Fig 9, [0248]); and output a result on the display (acknowledging the multi-part command by displaying the tasks on the display, [0284]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger by including a display; a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model; outputting a result on the display in order to provide an efficient way to a user to manage multiple notifications at one time, as suggested by Gruber ([0272]), predictably reducing user frustration, as suggested by Gruber ([0005]). The cited references are analogous art in the field of voice commands.
Neuberger and Gruber do not specifically mention based on the first function being able to be performed according to the data, control to output result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display; and based on the second function being able to be performed, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function.
Johnson discloses based on the first function being able to be performed according to a data, control to output result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display (determining that the first voice command is included in a set of voice commands, i.e. a data, for which voice recognition can be performed, providing secure data for display, i.e. “a first function” based on the first command, Col 2 lines 5-19; e.g. displaying a savings account balance in response to “savings account balance”, Col 7 lines 62-67); and
based on the second function being able to be performed according to the data about performable functions, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function (determining that the second voice command comprises a voice command for which voice recognition, i.e. “a second function” is not to be performed, but is “able to be performed”, and displaying a message on the user device indicating that the first voice command can be used for voice authentication of the user, Col 2 lines 20-48; e.g. “You can now use the following command(s) for voice authentication: … “Show me my accounts”, Fig 3E, Col 13 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger and Gruber by based on the first function being able to be performed according to a data, controlling to output a result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display; and based on the second function being able to be performed, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function in order to reduce time and resources necessary to authenticate the user, as suggested by Johnson (Col 1 lines 29-39). The cited references are analogous art in the field of voice commands.
Neuberger, Gruber, and Johnson do not specifically mention the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions.
Rohani discloses the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions (determining whether a sequence of word commands, such as “RADIO”, “CHANNEL”, “ONE” is a valid sequence, and informing the user by synthesized speech if an invalid sequence is uttered, page 4 lines 26-29, page 5 lines 23-25, the second command being able to be sequentially performed or not based on hierarchical command structure 200 three levels, which define available command paths, i.e. sequentially performable functions that are valid sequences, pages 7-8, lines 7-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, and Johnson by determining the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions in order to increase accuracy of command input in certain situations as identified by Rohani, (page 3 lines 3-15), predictably resulting in more reliable recognition, as suggested by Rohani (page 3 lines 3-15). The cited references are analogous art in the field of voice commands.
Consider claim 11, Neuberger discloses a method for controlling an electronic apparatus (an IVR system is controlled with voice commands, [0002], [0011]), the method comprising:
receiving a user voice input corresponding to performing of a function of the electronic apparatus, and performing a function corresponding to a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained, the user voice input including a first voice command corresponding to a first function and a second voice command corresponding to a second function (user speaks “greetings, record” , which causes the device to perform a “record” function based on the received commands, Fig 4, [0029]).
Neuberger does not specifically mention a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model.
Gruber discloses a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model (user data and models include natural language processing models, [0082], [0211], Fig 7A element 732, and the recognition result from a multi-part command is passed to natural language processing module for intent deduction, i.e. recognizing intent from the user’s voice signal, [0214], [0220], e.g. “Navigate to Jessica’s house and send her a message that I’m on my way”, Fig 9, [0248]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger by including a voice recognition on the user voice input based on a data obtained from a natural language model for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Neuberger and Gruber do not specifically mention based on the first function being able to be performed according to the data, control to output result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display; and based on the second function being able to be performed, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function.
Johnson discloses based on the first function being able to be performed according to a data, control to output result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display (determining that the first voice command is included in a set of voice commands, i.e. a data, for which voice recognition can be performed, providing secure data for display, i.e. “a first function” based on the first command, Col 2 lines 5-19; e.g. displaying a savings account balance in response to “savings account balance”, Col 7 lines 62-67); and
based on the second function being able to be performed according to the data about performable functions, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function (determining that the second voice command comprises a voice command for which voice recognition, i.e. “a second function” is not to be performed, but is “able to be performed”, and displaying a message on the user device indicating that the first voice command can be used for voice authentication of the user, Col 2 lines 20-48; e.g. “You can now use the following command(s) for voice authentication: … “Show me my accounts”, Fig 3E, Col 13 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger and Gruber by based on the first function being able to be performed according to a data, controlling to output a result of performing the first function corresponding to the user voice input on the display; and based on the second function being able to be performed, control to output the result of performing the first function on the display differently according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Neuberger, Gruber, and Johnson do not specifically mention the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions.
Rohani discloses the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions (determining whether a sequence of word commands, such as “RADIO”, “CHANNEL”, “ONE” is a valid sequence, and informing the user by synthesized speech if an invalid sequence is uttered, page 4 lines 26-29, page 5 lines 23-25, the second command being able to be sequentially performed or not based on hierarchical command structure 200 three levels, which define available command paths, i.e. sequentially performable functions that are valid sequences, pages 7-8, lines 7-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, and Johnson by determining the second function being able to be sequentially performed according to the data about sequentially performable functions for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 4, Neuberger discloses the processor is configured to: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, perform only the first function (if the user utters “record, delete” instead of just “record”, the only record is performed since “delete” cannot be performed after “record”, since “record” is terminal, [0033], Fig 4).
Consider claim 5, Neuberger discloses the processor is configured to: based on the second function being able to be performed after performing the first function, perform the second function after performing the first function (if the user utters “delete, next”, both functions are performed, since “delete” is not terminal, [0034], Fig 4).
Consider claim 6, Neuberger discloses the processor is configured to: perform the first function and the second function in an order of being received according to the user voice input (if the user utters “delete, next”, the current message is first deleted, then the system goes to the next message, [0034], Fig 4).
Consider claim 7, Neuberger discloses the processor is configured to: perform the second function based on information corresponding to the first function (if the user utters “save, next, delete”, the system deletes the next message, [0029]).
Consider claim 12, Neuberger and Gruber do not, but Johnson discloses based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, outputting a UI corresponding to the second function not being able to be performed (determining that the second voice command comprises a voice command for which voice recognition, i.e. “a second function” is not to be performed, but is “able to be performed”, and displaying a message on the user device indicating that the first voice command can be used for voice authentication of the user, Col 2 lines 20-48; e.g. “You can now use the following command(s) for voice authentication: … “Show me my accounts”, Fig 3E, Col 13 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger and Gruber such that based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, outputting a UI corresponding to the second function not being able to be performed for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 14, Neuberger discloses: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, performing only the first function (if the user utters “record, delete” instead of just “record”, the only record is performed since “delete” cannot be performed after “record”, since “record” is terminal, [0033], Fig 4).
Consider claim 15, Neuberger discloses: based on the second function being able to be performed after performing the first function, performing the second function after performing the first function (if the user utters “delete, next”, both functions are performed, since “delete” is not terminal, [0034], Fig 4).
Consider claim 16, Neuberger discloses the performing the second function after performing the first function comprises: performing the first function and the second function in an order of being received according to the user voice input (if the user utters “delete, next”, the current message is first deleted, then the system goes to the next message, [0034], Fig 4).
Consider claim 17, Neuberger discloses the performing the second function after performing the first function comprises: performing the second function based on information corresponding to the first function (if the user utters “save, next, delete”, the system deletes the next message, [0029]).
Consider claim 21, Neuberger discloses the processor is further configured to output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function according to whether the second function and the first function are sequentially performable (if the user utters “record, delete” instead of just “record”, the entire utterance is rejected since “delete” cannot be performed after “record”, since “record” is terminal, [0033], Fig 4, but if the functions are sequentially performable, a result of the second function being performed is output, e.g. “previous, previous” [0029])).
Neuberger does not specifically mention outputting a result on the display.
Gruber discloses outputting a result on the display (acknowledging the multi-part command by displaying the tasks on the display, [0284]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger by outputting a result on the display for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Neuberger and Gruber do not specifically mention outputting the result of performing the second function differently.
Johnson discloses outputting the result of performing the second function differently (determining that the second voice command comprises a voice command for which voice recognition, i.e. “a second function” is not to be performed, but is “able to be performed”, and displaying a message on the user device indicating that the first voice command can be used for voice authentication of the user, Col 2 lines 20-48; e.g. “You can now use the following command(s) for voice authentication: … “Show me my accounts”, Fig 3E, Col 13 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger and Gruber by outputting the result of performing the second function differently for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuberger et al. (US 20040153322) in view of Gruber et al. (US 20150348551) in further view of Johnson (US 10013983), in further view of Rohani et al. (WO 91/13431), in further view of Lagassey (US 9189197).
Consider claim 2, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Lagassey discloses the processor is configured to: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to the second function not being able to be performed (in response to “open the garage door and turn on the lights”, the garage door is opened but the user is prompted which lights to turn on, Col 22 lines 13-16, using a displayed prompt, Col 37 lines 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the processor is configured to: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to the second function not being able to be performed in order to guide the user through the input of complex commands, as suggested by Lagassey (Col 22 lines 9-13). Doing so would have led to predictable results of allowing the system to build valid commands from inputs which would otherwise fail, as suggested by Lagassey (Col 22 lines 9-13). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of voice commands.
Consider claim 3, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Lagassey discloses the processor is configured to: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to an inquiry regarding whether only the first function can be performed (in response to “open the garage door and turn on the lights”, the garage door is opened but the user is prompted which lights to turn on, Col 22 lines 13-16, using a displayed prompt, Col 37 lines 64-66, the prompt considered an “inquiry” “regarding” whether only the garage door can be opened or whether lights are also to be turned on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the processor is configured to: based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, control the display to output a UI corresponding to an inquiry regarding whether only the first function can be performed for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 9, Neuberger discloses different languages from one another (IVR application for which a multi-level database exists in one language could be adapted for a different language).
Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not specifically mention the user voice input comprises: a plurality of sentences corresponding to one another.
Lagassey discloses user voice input comprises: a plurality of sentences corresponding to one another (“open the garage door and turn on the lights”, Col 22 lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the voice input comprises a plurality of sentences as in Lagassey, corresponding to different languages as disclosed by Neuberger, for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 10, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Lagassey discloses the plurality of sentences are sentences in forms of compound sentences connected with conjunctions (“open the garage door and turn on the lights”, Col 22 lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the plurality of sentences are sentences in forms of compound sentences connected with conjunctions for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 13, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Lagassey discloses based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, outputting a UI corresponding to an inquiry regarding whether only the first function can be performed (in response to “open the garage door and turn on the lights”, the garage door is opened but the user is prompted which lights to turn on, Col 22 lines 13-16, using a displayed prompt, Col 37 lines 64-66, the prompt considered an “inquiry” “regarding” whether only the garage door can be opened or whether lights are also to be turned on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that based on the second function not being able to be performed after performing the first function, outputting a UI corresponding to an inquiry regarding whether only the first function can be performed for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 19, Neuberger discloses different languages from one another (IVR application for which a multi-level database exists in one language could be adapted for a different language).
Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not do not specifically mention the user voice input comprises: a plurality of sentences corresponding to one another.
Lagassey discloses user voice input comprises: a plurality of sentences corresponding to one another (“open the garage door and turn on the lights”, Col 22 lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the voice input comprises a plurality of sentences as in Lagassey, corresponding to different languages as disclosed by Neuberger, for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 20, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Lagassey discloses the plurality of sentences are sentences in forms of compound sentences connected with conjunctions (“open the garage door and turn on the lights”, Col 22 lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that the plurality of sentences are sentences in forms of compound sentences connected with conjunctions for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Consider claim 22, Neuberger discloses the processor is further configured to output the result of performing the second function after performing the first function according to whether the second function is performable after performing the first function (if the user utters “record, delete” instead of just “record”, the entire utterance is rejected since “delete” cannot be performed after “record”, since “record” is terminal, [0033], Fig 4, but if the functions are sequentially performable, a result of the second function being performed is output, e.g. “previous, previous” [0029]).
Neuberger does not specifically mention outputting a result on the display.
Gruber discloses outputting a result on the display (acknowledging the multi-part command by displaying the tasks on the display, [0284]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger by outputting a result on the display for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Neuberger and Gruber do not specifically mention outputting the result of performing the second function differently.
Johnson discloses discloses outputting the result of performing the second function differently (determining that the second voice command comprises a voice command for which voice recognition, i.e. “a second function” is not to be performed, but is “able to be performed”, and displaying a message on the user device indicating that the first voice command can be used for voice authentication of the user, Col 2 lines 20-48; e.g. “You can now use the following command(s) for voice authentication: … “Show me my accounts”, Fig 3E, Col 13 lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger and Gruber by outputting the result of performing the second function differently for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not specifically mention an order of occurrence of a first sentence and a second sentence in a complex sentence including in the user voice input, the first sentence corresponding to the first function and the second sentence corresponding to the second function.
Lagassey discloses an order of occurrence of a first sentence and a second sentence in a complex sentence including in the user voice input, the first sentence corresponding to the first function and the second sentence corresponding to the second function (e.g. “open the garage door and turn on the lights”, Col 22 lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, and Johnson by using an order of occurrence of a first sentence and a second sentence in a complex sentence including in the user voice input, the first sentence corresponding to the first function and the second sentence corresponding to the second function for reasons similar to those for claim 2.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuberger et al. (US 20040153322) in view of Gruber et al. (US 20150348551) in further view of Johnson (US 10013983), in further view of Rohani et al. (WO 91/13431), in further view of Feng et al. (US 20080010259).
Consider claim 23, Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani do not, but Feng discloses a complex sentence included in the user voice input is divided into a first sentence and a second sentence further based on a named entity recognition process using the natural language model (e.g. “Please tell me where is the Innovation, and where can I save money nearest there?” is divided into “Please tell me where is the Innovation” and “where can I save money nearest there”, Fig 9b by parsing the natural language query by means of the location query language base 22, [0161], which tags named entities such as “Hailong Plaza, [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neuberger, Gruber, Johnson, and Rohani such that a complex sentence included in the user voice input is divided into a first sentence and a second sentence further based on a named entity recognition process using the natural language model in order to increase accuracy and efficiency of results, as suggested by Feng ([0007]), predictably resulting in more precise and concise access to information, as suggested by Feng ([0007]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of voice commands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 01/07/26