DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the 112(b) rejection assigned by the PTAB in the Decision Mailed 1 July 2026.
Claims 1 and 4 are amended, in the response filed 22 July 2026.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 2016/0155443) in view of Higbie (US 2017/0103754).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Khan teaches a method, performed by a device coupled to a digital camera, a microphone, and a network interface for communicating with a local area network [0356-0360], comprising: responding to a determined presence of a wake word in a data received via the microphone [0007; 0020; 0029; 0041] by causing the device to transition from a first mode of operation in which the wake word is required to provide to the device [0020; 0041; 0066] before the device will provide any voice data received via use of the microphone to the cloud-based server via use of the network interface for processing to a second mode of operation [0356-0360; 0372] in which the device will provide any voice data received via use of the microphone to the cloud-based server via use of the network interface without requiring the wake word to be again provided to the device [0356-0360; 0372] via use of the microphone so long as it is determined from an image data captured via use of the digital camera that a user has gazed at the device while the device is operating in the second mode of operation [0050; 0080; 0173].
Khan does not explicitly teach – but Higbie does teach causing the device to transition from the second mode of operation back to the first mode of operation when a predetermined amount of time has elapsed while the device is operating in the second mode of operation without any voice data being received via use of the microphone [0028; 0261; 0303] and additionally teaches device will provide any voice data received via use of the microphone to the cloud-based server via use of the network interface for processing to a second mode of operation [0250; 0258-0264; 0303] in which the device will provide any voice data received via use of the microphone to the cloud-based server via use of the network interface without regard to whether a wake word was provided to the device [0250; 0258-0264; 0303]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Khan to include switching to a sleep or low-power mode after a period of time to reduce energy consumption when the device is not being actively used.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, Khan also teaches wherein the device is coupled to an output device and the method further comprises providing an indication via the output device that the device is operating in the first mode of operation [0032-33; 0350-56]. Higbie additionally teaches this limitation in [0226; 0277; 0301-03].
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 2016/0155443) and Higbie (US 2017/0103754), as applied to Claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Plagge (US 2014/0228124).
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Khan broadly teaches wherein determining that a user has gazed at the device comprises determining the presence of two eyes and a mouth within the image data [0050; 0080; 0173]. Plagge teaches wherein determining that a user has gazed at the device comprises determining the presence of two eyes and a mouth within the image data [0049]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Khan to include using mouth and eyes because they tend to be unique facial features which may be used to look up a user identity in a look up table or other database.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 22 July 2026, with respect to amendments to Claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefiniteness rejection applied by the PTAB in the Decision of 1 July 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Primary reference Khan teaches recognizing a wake phrase ([0005] and others), speech recognition ([0020] and others), visual detection of a user’s face [0080], hardware sensors including cameras in either sleep or wake-up modes [0173], accessing cloud services via local internet [0356]. So, primary reference Khan teaches all of the essential limitations of applicant’s Claims 1 and 4 – minus some specific details which are found in secondary reference Higbie. The details of how the system switches modes between an active listening for speech and a waiting or wake mode is specified in [0028], [0261] and [0303] (amongst others), with clear rationales as to why there are minimum waiting periods to end an active listening mode. As such, Khan, as modified by Higbie, teaches each of the elements of independent Claim 1 (and Claim 4).
In response to applicant’s arguments on Pages 5-6, the combination of Khan and Higbie clearly do teach a device that operates in two (or more modes). In [0049] and [0050] of the primary reference, Khan states “… user identification can be performed on the wake phrase (e.g., based on phonetically rich data …) additional layers of authentication for some actions or tasks can be required, but it can be useful to have user-specific recognition, especially when there are groups of devices being used by groups of people in the same location. Additional user identification features can be used in combination with the wake phrase (e.g., a visual sensor can perform face recognition, skeletal recognition, or the like)” – thus providing at least the primary option of a wake phrase, but connected with other devices that could work instead of, or in addition to, voice recognition of the user. Furthermore, in [0080] Khan gives examples of other connected hardware sensors, such as “physical movement of a device, activity at a touchscreen, keyboard, pointing device, movement visually detected, user visual (e.g., face, skeletal, etc.) recognition, or the like. Hardware other than the microphone can be used, but a microphone can also collect activity (e.g., sound detected).”. While in [0082], Khan states explicitly that “example electronic device 350A configured to recognize a voice command … comprising a topology 305 of interconnected electronic devices 350A-N. In the example, the electronic devices 350A-N have listening (e.g., voice recognition) capabilities, but the topology 305 can also include one or more devices without voice recognition”. Meanwhile, in [0250] and [0258] – [0264] of the secondary reference, Higbie describes a series of actions which involve data transfer, storage or other activity while in active mode “the interactive system causes the associated action to be performed (e.g., by the user's device or by the server or by any other designated entity). For example, the actions of calling, texting, and emailing to predefined destinations may be performed by the user's device. The actions of sending information for receipt by the user's device, calling the user's device… etc., may be performed by the interactive system. The techniques for recognizing and analyzing voice commands and performing associated actions…” Thus, Khan clearly teaches operation in two modes – one with voice recognition of a wake word or phrase, but another mode where there are other means of user recognition without voice recognition. Once the active mode activities are completed, and no user activity is detected, the device/system of Khan, modified by Higbie, can switch to a passive or sleep mode to use less energy.
In response to applicant’s argument on Pages 7-8 that Khan does not transition from a first mode to a second mode after a wake word in the microphone, [0020] of Khan states “A user can wake up a device in connected standby (or otherwise low-power mode) simply by uttering a wake phrase, and the device goes into a listening state for full speech recognition” and [0041] states “At 230, responsive to recognizing the wake phrase, the device wakes (e.g., it wakes itself) and controls which … indicates an active listening state in response to the wake phrase. The device that does respond transitions into an active listening state as described …”. Even if these citations were not already so explicit in Khan, [0019] of Higbie recognizes that wake phrases are common to switch from a first mode to a second mode “In some embodiments, a speech recognizer is always active. For example, it is running in the background, constantly listening for the wakeup word to be spoken…The wakeup word (prompt) then begins utilization of the speech recognizer. In other embodiments, a speech recognizer is turned off, and a wakeup word (prompt) first activates the speech recognizer and then starts utilization of the now-activated speech recognizer. In either case, a wakeup word (prompt) may be considered a sign to start using the speech recognizer.”, while [0028] of Higbie describes reversion from an active mode to a passive/waiting mode once no voices are detected any longer “After the period of time for which the speech recognition is activated has elapsed, the speech recognizer is turned off, and the content is resumed” and [0250] describes conditions to revert to “ a time to put a system (e.g., a speech recognizer engine) on a stand-by mode, a time to put a system on a running mode, a time to put a system on a deactivation mode, a time to revert the switching,,, etc”. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument on Page 9, that the examiner ignores the requirement that voice data is provided without regard to a wake word, so long as the user has gazed at the device, it is quite clear that the citations of Khan and Higbie in Paragraph 4 above demonstrate clearly that Khan and Higbie teach the whole of claims 1 and 4. The primary and secondary references clearly and explicitly teach each and every limitation, as opposed to merely the “gist” or “thrust” of the claimed invention, as erroneously alleged by the applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on 5712705227. 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 R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights