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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Final Office Action from 1/28/2026, Applicant has filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) on 3/27/2026. In this reply, Applicant has amended independent claims 21, 31, and 40 to further specify that the guiding input of the other user voice "does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered commands." Claims 23 and 33 have been cancelled.
Applicant has also argued that the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations added via the instant amendment (Remarks, Pages 8-11). These arguments have been fully considered, however, are not found to be persuasive for the reasons noted in the below Response to Arguments section.
Applicant has requested that the non-statutory obviousness type double patent rejection be
held in abeyance until allowable claims are obtained (Remarks, Page 6).
In response, it is noted that the non-statutory obviousness type double patent rejection has been maintained while being updated to reflect the currently amended claims. Also, please note that the correct reference patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,885,916) was listed on page 18 of the Final Office Action from 1/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that Bae, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2013/0179168 A1) fails to teach the storing of pre-registered voice commands and a determination whether a candidate command word corresponds to a plurality of pre-registered commands because Bae is instead concerned with the suitability of commands as being sufficiently short or having a required voice recognition rate (Remarks, Pages 10).
In response, these arguments relate to a piecemeal analysis of the references where the rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Bae and Bodin, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0133244 A1) and wherein Bodin is relied upon to address the argued limitations. Thus, Applicant arguments directed towards Bae are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant next turns the set of arguments to focus on the teachings of Bodin. In particular, Applicant summarizes the cited paragraphs of Bodin and generally contends that Bodin does not "disclose or suggest a configuration for guiding a user to utter a new voice that is not a pre-registered command in the manner recited" (Remarks, Pages 10-11).
In response, it is noted that the guidance argued by Applicant as claimed in the instant amendment relates to an other user voice that "does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered commands." Bodin teaches a process step in which a provided registration utterance is compared with "a set of pre-existing commands in at least one speech recognition grammar" (Paragraph 0026). In particular, this comparison includes determining whether the provided utterance is "acoustically similar to a pre-existing command" (Paragraph 0027). When such acoustic similarity with pre-existing commands is identified a user is guided (e.g., such as via a provided substitute and a notice of similarity, Paragraphs 0028-0029).
The amended claim 21 requires that the input of an other user voice "that does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands." Boding guides a user in providing a command that is not ambiguous or acoustically similar to a "pre-existing command." Commands with high acoustic similarity would necessarily include a duplicate of a pre-existing command where a user is guided in Bodin as explained above to select another command that does not correspond to that pre-existing command. Applicant should also be aware that Bodin teaches that guidance can be "provided visually in a Graphical User Interface" along with audible output (Paragraph 0023). In this manner, Applicant arguments are not found to be persuasive and the previous ground of rejection, altered with respect to the amended claim language, has been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the remaining independent and dependent claims have been traversed for reasons similar to claim 21 (Remarks, Page 11). In regards to such arguments, see the response directed towards independent claim 21.
Lastly, the Examiner requests that Applicant reconsiders remarks made in the interview from 10/8/2025 and memorialized in the summary mailed on 10/14/2025. In this interview, potential amendments were suggested pertaining to multiple suitability factors in a combination relating to the provided guidance as potentially defining over the prior art of record. Such amendments have not been made to this point in prosecution and at least consideration of such concepts would be recommended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 24, 28-31, 34, and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 14 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,939. Instant Claims 22 and 32 further rely upon the teachings of Bae, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2013/0179168 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as per the below mapping table:
Instant Application Claim
Reference Patent Claim
Comments
21. A display apparatus, comprising: a display; a microphone; and a processor configured to:
1. A display apparatus, comprising: a display; a voice input receiver; and a processor configured to:
While the reference claim features a broader voice input receiver, a microphone is an obvious variation/species of a voice input receiver.
based on a user request for registering a user command being received, receive a first user voice input through the microphone, wherein the user command is a command for controlling the display apparatus
receive a user voice input for registering as a voice command corresponding to controlling a function of the display apparatus through the voice input receiver while a function corresponding to a voice input state is performed
Similar functionality for receiving a voice input through the voice input receiver addressed above is recited in the reference claim.
obtain a first text corresponding to the first user voice input
obtain a text corresponding to the received user voice input
Identical functionality in the reference claim language
based on the first text corresponding to a first command of a plurality of pre- registered voice commands, control the display to display a first UI (User Interface) indicating that the first text is unable to be registered as the user command and guiding input of an other user voice that does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands for registering as the user command,
3. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display a UI guiding input of another user voice for registering the voice command.
Note that the GUI of reference claim 3 is an indication to a user that the text corresponds to the first command, cannot be registered, and guides input of another user voice for command that solves for “being related” to the existing command for registration as recited in instant claim 21.
after displaying the first UI, receive a second user voice input for registering the user command through the microphone
4. The display apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive input of the other user voice input through the voice input receiver,
The “other voice input” of the reference claim maps to the “second user voice input” of the instant claim.
obtain a second text corresponding to the second user voice input
4. and based on a text corresponding to the input not being related to the pre-registered voice command and the prohibited expression
Note that in order to base a decision on the secondary text of the reference claim, it must first be obtained.
based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, register the second text as the user command
4. based on a text corresponding to the input not being related to the pre-registered voice command and the prohibited expression, control the display to display the text corresponding to the input together with a UI indicating that the text corresponding to the input is able to be registered as the voice command.
Note that from the reference claim step of “able to be registered” it logically follows that registration may occur as recited in the instant claim.
after registering the user command, based on a third user voice input, which is received through the microphone, corresponding to the user command, control an operation of the display apparatus, wherein the operation corresponds to the user command.
1. receive a user voice input for registering as a voice command corresponding to controlling a function of the display apparatus through the voice input receiver while a function corresponding to a voice input state is performed
The voice command of the reference claim pertains to controlling a function of the display apparatus; thus, it follows an obvious variation that the command would be subsequently received after registration and executed.
24.The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text corresponding to a second command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, control the display to display a second UI indicating the second text is unable to be registered as the user command.
3.The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display a UI guiding input of another user voice for registering the voice command.
Note that the more specific GUI of reference claim 3 is an indication to a user that the text corresponds to the first command and is unable to be registered as recited in instant claim 24.
28. The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, control the display to display the second text corresponding to the second user voice input.
4. based on a text corresponding to the input not being related to the pre-registered voice command and the prohibited expression, control the display to display the text corresponding to the input together with a UI indicating that the text corresponding to the input is able to be registered as the voice command.
The functionality of the instant claim is found in the reference claim.
29. The display apparatus of claim 21, further comprising:a memory; wherein the processor is further configured to:based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, store the second text as the user command in the memory.
4. based on a text corresponding to the input not being related to the pre-registered voice command and the prohibited expression, control the display to display the text corresponding to the input together with a UI indicating that the text corresponding to the input is able to be registered as the voice command.
Note that from the reference claim step of “able to be registered” it logically follows that registration may occur as recited in the instant claim. Moreover, registration requires some level of permanence so that the command can be used in the future where a computer memory would be an obvious variation of the registration process recited in the reference claim.
30. The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, register the second text as the user command with an execution command to control the operation of the display apparatus.
4. based on a text corresponding to the input not being related to the pre-registered voice command and the prohibited expression, control the display to display the text corresponding to the input together with a UI indicating that the text corresponding to the input is able to be registered as the voice command.
Note that from the reference claim step of “able to be registered” it logically follows that registration may occur as recited in the instant claim. Also note that per reference parent claim 1, a command pertains to “controlling a function of the display apparatus” (i.e., an execution command).
Instant claim 31 is the method corresponding to the apparatus of the instant claim 21 while reference claim 24 is the method corresponding to the apparatus of the reference claim 1. Accordingly, instant claims 31 and 34 and 38-39 map to reference claim 24 for the rationale provided above with respect to reference claim 4.
Instant claim 40 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the apparatus of instant claim 21 while reference claim 14 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the apparatus of the reference claim 1. Accordingly, instant claim 40 maps to reference claim 14 for the rationale provided above with respect to reference claim 4.
With respect to dependent Claims 22 and 32, these claims are rejected based upon reference claims 4 and 24 respectively in view of Bae, et al.- based on the second text being related to a prohibited expression (non-suitability determination of command word(s), Paragraph 0178 and Fig. 13, Element 817), displaying an indicator that the second text is related to the prohibited expression (display of “Registration Not Possible,” Paragraph 0180). This approach provides a predictable result of keeping a user updated that their efforts to register a command were unsuccessful.
Claims 21-22, 24, 29-32, 34, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-6 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,495,228. Instant Claims 28 and 38 further rely upon the teachings of Azam, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2016/0358603 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as per the below mapping table:
Instant Application Claim
Reference Patent Claim
Comments
21. A display apparatus, comprising: a display; a microphone; and a processor configured to:
10. An apparatus comprising: a user input receiver; a user voice input receiver; a display; and a processor configured to:
While the reference claim features a broader voice input receiver, a microphone is an obvious variation/species of a voice input receiver.
based on a user request for registering a user command being received, receive a first user voice input through the microphone, wherein the user command is a command for controlling the display apparatus
based on a user input being received through the user input receiver, perform a function corresponding to voice input state for receiving a user voice input; receive a user voice input through the user voice input receiver; identify whether or not a text corresponding to the received user voice input is related to a pre-registered voice command
Similar functionality for receiving a voice input through the voice input receiver addressed above is recited in the reference claim and the voice input in the context of reference claim 10 relates to an attempt to register a command for controlling the apparatus having a display (i.e., a display apparatus as recited in instant claim 21).
obtain a first text corresponding to the first user voice input
identify whether or not a text corresponding to the received user voice input is related to a pre-registered voice command or a prohibited expression
In order to perform the identification of claim 10 using corresponding text, the text must first be obtained.
based on the first text corresponding to a first command of a plurality of pre- registered voice commands, control the display to display a first UI (User Interface) indicating that the first text is unable to be registered as the user command and guiding input of an other user voice that does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands for registering as the user command,
based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression, control the display to display an indicator that the text is related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression.
14. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator that the text is unable to be registered as a voice command.
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator guiding re-input of other user voice for registering the voice command.
Note that the more specific indicator on a display to a user of reference claim 10 relates to the guidance for a re-input of an other not pre-registered command and the UI recited in amended instant claim 21.
after displaying the first UI, receive a second user voice input for registering the user command through the microphone
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator guiding re-input of other user voice for registering the voice command.
Reference claim 15 relates to an obvious variation of this step of instant claim 21 wherein guiding re-input would logically proceed to receiving the “other voice” being guided and wherein the “other voice” corresponds to the “second user voice input” recited in instant claim 21.
obtain a second text corresponding to the second user voice input
identify whether or not a text corresponding to the received user voice input is related to a pre-registered voice command or a prohibited expression
Reference claim 10 is an obvious variation of instant claim 21 for this step where to register subsequent voice commands is to perform an obvious second iteration that involves the same verification processes.
based on the second text not corresponding to at least one command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, register the second text as the user command
based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression, control the display to display an indicator that the text is related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression.
Obvious variation of the instant claim in that reference claim 10 relates to the opposite scenario wherein the text is still compared to existing commands and wherein the operations of reference claim 10 are performed to register a command.
after registering the user command, based on a third user voice input, which is received through the microphone, corresponding to the user command, control an operation of the display apparatus, wherein the operation corresponds to the user command.
based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression, control the display to display an indicator that the text is related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression.
Continuing with the logic of the immediately above cell, it would be an obvious extension to receive and execute a registered voice command provided that there are no conflicts in registration.
22. The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text being related to a prohibited expression, displaying an indicator that the second text is related to the prohibited expression.
10. based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression, control the display to display an indicator that the text is related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression.
The functionality of the instant claim is found in the reference claim.
24. The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text corresponding to a second command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, control the display to display a second UI indicating the second text is unable to be registered as the user command.
10. based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression, control the display to display an indicator that the text is related to the pre-registered voice command or the prohibited expression.
14. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator that the text is unable to be registered as a voice command.
The functionality of the instant claim is found in the reference claim.
29. The display apparatus of claim 21, further comprising: a memory; wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, store the second text as the user command in the memory.
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator guiding re-input of other user voice for registering the voice command.
Obvious variation of the instant claim in that reference claim 15 relates to the opposite scenario wherein the text is still compared to existing commands and wherein the operations of reference claim 10 are performed to register a command. Moreover registration requires some level of permanence so that the command can be used in the future where a computer memory would be an obvious variation to register the valid command based upon guidance.
30.The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, register the second text as the user command with an execution command to control the operation of the display apparatus.
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the text being related to the pre-registered voice command, control the display to display an indicator guiding re-input of other user voice for registering the voice command.
Obvious variation flowing from the prompt to re-input a valid command in claim 15. Note that the command being registered pertains to control of a device with a display (i.e., display apparatus) as recited in parent claim 10.
Instant claim 31 is the method corresponding to the apparatus of the instant claim 21, and thus maps to the obvious variation of method functionality in the form of an apparatus of the reference claim 15. Accordingly, instant claims 31-32, 34, and 39 map to reference claim 15 for the rationale provided above.
Instant claim 40 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the apparatus of instant claim 21 while reference claim 6 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the apparatus of the reference claim 10. Accordingly, instant claim 40 maps to reference claim 6 for the rationale provided above with respect to reference claim 15.
With respect to dependent Claims 28 and 38, these claims are rejected based upon reference claims 15 in view of Azam, et al.- based on the second text not corresponding to the at least one command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands (“new” command learning, Paragraphs 0018 and 0070), control the display to display the second text corresponding to the second user voice input (the control unit may display a “new command” box that includes the name/text of the command (e.g., “sports”), the action associated with the command, etc. before creating the new command,” Paragraph 0067; “the control unit 33 may then display a “new command” message box that includes the name/text of the command (e.g., “refresh”),” Paragraph 0071). This approach provides a predictable result of allowing a user to visually confirm that the new command was recognized as intended prior to approval.
Claims 31-32, 34 and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,916. Instant Claims 21-22, 24 and 28-29 correspond to obvious variation of embodiments of claims 32, 34, and 38-39 while separate rationale is provided below for claim 30, and further rely upon the teachings of Bae, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2013/0179168 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as per the below mapping table:
Instant Application Claim
Reference Patent Claim
Comments
31. A control method of a display apparatus, the control method comprising: based on a user request for registering a user command being received, receiving a first user voice input, wherein the user command is a command for controlling the display apparatus
12. A control method of an apparatus, the method comprising: receiving a user voice input a voice command for executing a function;
Method step performed is similar wherein the command is “for controlling” in instant claim 31 is an intended purpose for the command
obtaining a first text corresponding to the first user voice input
obtaining a text corresponding to the user voice input
The functionality of the instant claim is found in the reference claim.
based on the first text corresponding to a first command of a plurality of pre- registered voice commands, displaying a first UI (User Interface) indicating that the first text is unable to be registered as the user command and guiding input of an other user voice that does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands for registering as the user command,
based on a text corresponding to the user voice input being already registered, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is unable to be registered as a voice command
13. The control method of the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: based on the text corresponding to the user voice input being related to the prohibited expression, controlling a display to display information for guiding a registration of other voice command which is able to be registered.
Identical functionality in the reference claim language wherein the visual indication in the reference claim is a UI that provide as a narrower indication that the first text corresponds to an already registered voice input for performing a function that is unable to be registered and a new input that is able/does not correspond to an already registered command is guided via a display.
after displaying the first UI, receiving a second user voice input for registering the user command
13. The control method of the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: based on the text corresponding to the user voice input being related to the prohibited expression, controlling a display to display information for guiding a registration of other voice command which is able to be registered.
Reference claim 13 relates to an obvious variation of this step of instant claim 31 wherein guiding re-input would logically proceed to receiving the “other voice” being guided and wherein the “other voice” corresponds to the “second user voice input” recited in instant claim 31.
obtaining a second text corresponding to the second user voice input
obtaining a text corresponding to the user voice input
Reference claim 12 is an obvious variation of instant claim 31 for this step where to register subsequent voice commands is to perform an obvious second iteration that involves the same verification processes- i.e., obtaining and verifying text for the subsequent candidate command.
based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, registering the second text as the user command
based on the text corresponding to the user voice input not being registered yet, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is able to be registered as a voice command
In the iteration described immediately above, it would obviously flow that a text able to be registered may be registered as the voice command.
after registering the user command, based on a third user voice input corresponding to the user command, controlling an operation of the display apparatus, wherein the operation corresponds to the user command.
based on the text corresponding to the user voice input not being registered yet, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is able to be registered as a voice command.
In the iteration described immediately above, it would obviously flow that a text able to be registered would subsequently be received and executed as a voice command to perform a function.
32. The control method of claim 31, wherein the control method further comprises: based on the second text being related to a prohibited expression, displaying an indicator that the second text is related to the prohibited expression.
12. based on the text corresponding to the user voice input being related to a prohibited expression, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is related to the prohibited expression.
The functionality of the instant claim is found in the reference claim.
34.The control method of claim 31, wherein the control method further comprises: based on the second text corresponding to a second command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, displaying a second UI indicating the second text is unable to be registered as the user command.
12. based on a text corresponding to the user voice input being already registered, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is unable to be registered as a voice command.
The obvious variation of an additional iteration was addressed above and the visual indication of the reference claim pertains the indication of the instant claim.
38. The control method of claim 31, wherein the control method further comprises: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, displaying the second text corresponding to the second user voice input.
12. based on the text corresponding to the user voice input not being registered yet, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is able to be registered as a voice command.
Visual indication of the text in the reference claim maps to the display of the second text in the instant claim. Iterations being an obvious variation on the process of the reference patent were discussed above.
39. The control method of claim 31, further comprising: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, storing the second text as the user command.
12. based on the text corresponding to the user voice input not being registered yet, providing at least one audio or visual indication that the text is able to be registered as a voice command.
Note that from the reference claim step of “able to be registered” it logically follows that registration may occur as recited in the instant claim.
Instant claim 21 is the apparatus that is an obvious embodiment variation of the method of instant claim 31 that was mapped to reference claim 13. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected under similar rationale with respect to reference claim 13. Moreover, reference claim 13 does not disclose the structural components of claim 21, however, Bae teaches:
a display (video output display screen of, e.g., a digital television, Paragraph 0063; Fig. 1, Element 121);
a microphone (microphone, Paragraph 0069 and Fig. 1, Element 112); and
a processor (processor/microprocessor, Paragraph 0186).
These teachings of Bae enable method implementation on a practical consumer display device such as a television that enables personalized control thereof. In regards to Claim 30, the voice commands are for controlling a device function, and thus, pertain to an execution command where command registration was addressed in the rejection of claim 31.
Instant claim 40 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method of instant claim 31 while reference claim 2 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method of the reference claim 13. Accordingly, instant claim 40 maps to reference claim 2 for the rationale provided above with respect to reference claim 13.
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 21-22, 24, 28-32, 34, and 38-40 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.
The following claims contain antecedent basis issues where a claim term is introduced with an indefinite article (e.g., "a") when the claim term was previously introduced and should be preceding by "the" or "said" leading to an indefinite issue where it is unclear whether reference to the previously indicated term or introduction of a new instance of the term is intended. These claim terms will be construed as having reference to the preceding limitations in the interest of compact prosecution and are as follows: "a command" (Claim 21, Line 17), "a command" (Claim 28, Line 3), "a command" (Claim 29, Line 4), "a command" (Claim 30, Line 3), "a command" (Claim 31, Line 14), "a command" (Claim 38, Line 3), "a command" (Claim 39, Line 2), and "a command" (Claim 40, Line 15). The remaining dependent claims inherit and fail to resolve the indefinite issues of their respective parent claims, and thus, have also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-22, 24, 29-32, 34, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bae, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2013/0179168 A1) in view of Bodin, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0133244 A1).
With respect to Claim 21, Bae disclsoes:
A display apparatus (image display apparatus, Paragraph 0062 and Fig. 1, Element 100), comprising:
a display (video output display screen of, e.g., a digital television, Paragraph 0063; Fig. 1, Element 121);
a microphone (microphone, Paragraph 0069 and Fig. 1, Element 112); and
a processor (processor/microprocessor, Paragraph 0186) configured to:
based on a user request for registering a user command being received, receive a first user voice input through the microphone, wherein the user command is a command for controlling the display apparatus (voice input for registering a user command is received though the microphone and processed via voice recognition where voice recognition is understood to be speech recognition as the context/words of the spoken command are being recognized rather than the identity of the speaker, Paragraphs 0172-0175),
obtain a first text corresponding to the first user voice input (the spoken registration command is analyzed via speech recognition that transcribes the spoken command into the pre-registered system command text in the form of “word units”, Paragraphs 0082 and 0172-0176),
based on the first text corresponding to an unsuitable command, control the display to display a first UI (User Interface) indicating that the first text is unable to be registered as the user command (see "Registration Not Possible" message described in the operations detailed in Paragraphs 0179-0180),
after displaying the first UI, receive a second user voice input for registering the user command through the microphone (responsive to the aforementioned displayed message regarding registration not possible, "the user may enter a new candidate command word again," Paragraphs 0177-0180),
obtain a second text corresponding to the second user voice input (performing voice recognition (i.e., speech recognition) to understand/transcribe word(s) of the “new candidate command” to be registered, Paragraphs 0082, 0175, and 0178; see also paragraph 0183 noting commands corresponding to textual icons; see also the iterative processing loop until an acceptable command is identified in Fig. 13),
based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands (the command differs from existing commands- "register...a new command word in addition to a command word which is previously set in the image display apparatus" and is suitable, Paragraph 0104), register the second text as the user command (command word(s) are registered as a useable system command, Paragraph 0178-0180 and Fig. 13, Element 819), and
after registering the user command, based on a third user voice input, which is received through the microphone, corresponding to the user command, control an operation of the display apparatus, wherein the operation corresponds to the user command ("user may register and use a new command word in addition to a command word which is previously set in the image display apparatus," Paragraph 0104; the new command is sent to the voice recognizer for use after registration, Paragraph 0178; voice commands are received by way of a microphone, Paragraph 0079; commands relate to control of a display apparatus such as a television, Paragraph 0074 and Fig. 12B).
Bae does not teach that suitability relates to the first text corresponding to the first text corresponding to a first command of a plurality of pre-registered voice commands to then further guide input of an other user voice that does not correspond to a command of the plurality of pre-registered commands for registering as the user command. Bodin, however, discloses comparing a candidate voice command entered by a user with "a set of pre-existing commands in at least one speech recognition grammar" (Paragraph 0026), determining whether the new command corresponds/is similar to "a pre-existing command" (note that commands with high acoustic similarity would necessarily include a duplicate of a pre-existing command where a user is guided in Bodin as explained above to select another command that does not correspond to that pre-existing command Paragraphs 0023 and 0027-0028), and then notification of this similarity is provided to a user along with a "suggestion" to guide a user for a new command candidate (Paragraphs 0009, 0023, and 0028).
Bae and Bodin are analogous at because they are from a similar field of endeavor in speech recognition vocabulary creation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the guiding for duplicative/similar commands taught by Bodin to the command registration method taught by Bae to provide a predictable result of user assistance for when a user is "unable to readily think of a substitute voice command for the original command" (Bodin, Paragraph 0006).
With respect to Claim 22, Bae further discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text being related to a prohibited expression (non-suitability determination of command word(s), Paragraph 0178 and Fig. 13, Element 817), displaying an indicator that the second text is related to the prohibited expression (display of “Registration Not Possible,” Paragraph 0180).
Claim 24 is addressed by the combination of Bae and Bodin similar to claim 21. Specifically, Bae teaches the iterative processing loop of Fig. 13 for unsuitable commands accompanied by a display of a UI "Registration Not Possible" indication as described in Paragraph 0180 while Bodin describes the correspondence with "pre-existing commands" as relied upon in the claim 21 rejection.
With respect to Claim 29, Bae further discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 21, further comprising: a memory ; wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, store the second text as the user command in the memory (voice recognizer storage, Paragraph 0082; new command words sent to voice recognizer, Paragraph 0178; storage device, Paragraph 0186; "user may register and use a new command word in addition to a command word which is previously set in the image display apparatus," Paragraph 0104; while Bodin describes the correspondence with "pre-existing commands" as relied upon in the claim 21 rejection).
With respect to Claim 30, Bae further discloses:
The display apparatus of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands ("user may register and use a new command word in addition to a command word which is previously set in the image display apparatus," Paragraph 0104), register the second text as the user command with an execution command to control the operation of the display apparatus (new command words sent to voice recognizer, Paragraph 0178; command relate to execution commands for controlling the display apparatus, Paragraph 0084 while Bodin describes the correspondence with "pre-existing commands" as relied upon in the claim 21 rejection).
Claim 31 regards the functionality of the system recited in claim 21, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 32 and 34 contain subject matter respectively similar to claims 22 and 24, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 39 contains subject matter similar to Claim 29, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 40 contains subject matter similar to Claim 31, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Moreover, Bae teaches method implementation as a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Paragraph 0186).
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae, et al. in view of Bodin, et al. and further in view of Azam, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2016/0358603 A1).
With Claim 28, Bae in view of Bodin teaches the image display apparatus capable of registering new voice commands, as applied to Claim 21. In the operations and interfaces of new command learning, Bae in view of Bodin does not disclose- based on the second text not corresponding to the at least one command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands, control the display to display the second text corresponding to the second user voice input. Azam, however, discloses:
based on the second text not corresponding to a command of the plurality of pre-registered voice commands (“new” command learning, Paragraphs 0018 and 0070), control the display to display the second text corresponding to the second user voice input (the control unit may display a “new command” box that includes the name/text of the command (e.g., “sports”), the action associated with the command, etc. before creating the new command,” Paragraph 0067; “the control unit 33 may then display a “new command” message box that includes the name/text of the command (e.g., “refresh”),” Paragraph 0071).
Bae, Bodin, and Azam are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in speech recognition vocabulary creation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the visual display interface for the new command to the GUI sequence of new command confirmation taught by Bae in view of Bodin to provide a predictable result of allowing a user to visually confirm that the new command was recognized as intended prior to approval.
Claim 38 is directed towards subject matter similar to Claim 28, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kujirai (U.S. PG Publication: 2004/0260562 A1)- teaches a check against command collision with existing commands that then warns a registrant of such an instance (Paragraph 0052).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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 at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights