DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/26 has been entered.
This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 3/12/26. Applicant has amended 1, 9, and 15.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new or modified grounds of rejection that were necessitated by the amendments to the Claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye in view of Kojima (US 20150287411), further in view of Carbune (US 20180182397).
Regarding Claim 1, Rikhye discloses 1. A method, comprising: ([0007] keyphrase detection system, para 0135 describes a method that correspond to the system.)
receiving, by an audio unit of a first apparatus ([0133] computing device can be of varying types including a workstation, server, computing cluster, blade server, server farm, or any other data processing system or computing device.,) an audio signal representative of speech; ([0007] audio data can capture Scott speaking the utterance “Coffee maker, start brewing coffee” as well as a baby crying.)
detecting, by the first apparatus, ([0133] computing device can be of varying types including a workstation, server, computing cluster, blade server, server farm, or any other data processing system or computing device.,) based on applying a keyphrase recognition model to the speech ([0007] a keyphrase matching model), a particular keyphrase of multiple keyphrases, ([0008] The system can determine whether the text representation of the spoken utterance is a particular keyphrase, from a plurality of keyphrases associated with the user.)
wherein the keyphrase recognition model is based on the multiple keyphrases, ([0008] The system can determine whether the text representation of the spoken utterance is a particular keyphrase, from a plurality of keyphrases associated with the user.)
and wherein the particular keyphrase comprises a first string of characters defining an identifier corresponding to at least one of ([0007-0008] audio data can capture Scott speaking the utterance “Coffee maker, start brewing coffee”)
Rikhye does not explicitly disclose plurality of apparatus, wherein the first apparatus includes an instance of the keyphrase recognition model and a first communication unit and, wherein each plurality of apparatus includes a respective instance of the keyphrase recognition model, a respective audio input unit configured to receive an audio signal representative of speech, and a respective communication unit in communication with the first communication unit; sending via a wireline or a radio link by the first apparatus, based on the identifier, the particular keyphrase to at least one second apparatus of the plurality of apparatus when the first string of characters defines an identifier corresponding to the at least one second apparatus; and causing the first apparatus to execute the command in response to receiving the audio signal when the first string of characters define an identifier corresponding to the first apparatus.
Kojima discloses: wherein the first apparatus includes an instance of the (see fig. 1 reproduced below, which contains communication unit for each target device, and it also includes voice recognition unit, but it is not located in each target device.) [keyphrase recognition model is disclosed in Rikhye reference from earlier, also taught by Carbune reference from below.]
PNG
media_image1.png
561
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
sending via a wireline or a radio link by the first apparatus, based on the identifier, the ([0008] In one general aspect, the techniques disclosed here feature a method in a device management system for managing a plurality of target devices that comprises: receiving, from a voice input apparatus associated with a first target device among the plurality of target devices, instruction information that includes first voice information indicating an operation instruction for any target device among the plurality of target devices; recognizing the operation instruction from the first voice information; determining whether or not second voice information indicating a second target device among the plurality of target devices is included in the instruction information; and transmitting, (i) if the second voice information is not included in the instruction information, a control command for executing the recognized operation instruction to the first target device, or, (ii) if the second voice information is included in the instruction information, the first control command to the second target device.) [The “second voice information” functions as an identifier for another device. The transmission to the second target device (likely over a network, which includes wireline/radio links) is based on the identifier.]
and causing the first apparatus to execute the command in response to receiving the audio signal when the first string of characters define an identifier corresponding to the first apparatus. ([0008] In one general aspect, the techniques disclosed here feature a method in a device management system for managing a plurality of target devices that comprises: receiving, from a voice input apparatus associated with a first target device among the plurality of target devices, instruction information that includes first voice information indicating an operation instruction for any target device among the plurality of target devices; recognizing the operation instruction from the first voice information; determining whether or not second voice information indicating a second target device among the plurality of target devices is included in the instruction information; and transmitting, (i) if the second voice information is not included in the instruction information, a control command for executing the recognized operation instruction to the first target device, or, (ii) if the second voice information is included in the instruction information, the first control command to the second target device.)[The first device receives the instruction (via the input apparatus) and is sent the command to execute it locally.]
Rikhye, and Kojima are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye to combine the teaching of Kojima for the above mentioned features, because the system implementation described improve the communication networks by enhancing user experience and efficiency by combining the convenience of contextual and explicit voice control (Kojima, [0008]).
Rikhye and Kojima do not appear to disclose each apparatus include a keyphrase recognition model, sending a particular keyphrase but sends a command instead (silent as to if the command is send by voice or audio).
Carbune discloses: wherein the first apparatus includes an instance of the keyphrase recognition model and a first communication unit and, wherein each of the plurality of apparatus includes a respective instance of the keyphrase recognition model, a respective audio input unit configured to receive an audio signal representative of speech, ([0031] In more detail, the sequence of events in FIG. 1 begins at stage A. The computing devices 104a and 104b identify each other and other computing devices that are configured to respond to a particular, predefined hotword. In some implementations, the computing devices identify each other by searching the local network for other computing devices that are configured to respond to the hotword. For example, computing device 104b may search the local area network, and may identify computing device 104a as another computing device that is configured to respond to the hotword.) Also see fig. 1 which is reproduced below for viewing convenience. As both devices contains keyword/hotword detector, audio input and communicating unit. Also see para 0045 and 0056.
PNG
media_image2.png
532
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
sending via a wireline or a radio link by the first apparatus, based on the identifier, the particular keyphrase to at least one second apparatus of the plurality of apparatus when the first string of characters defines an identifier corresponding to at least one second apparatus; ([0045] In some implementations, the computing devices may also send a device identifier with the audio data.) Also see para 0031, 0037, 0075, and 0077.
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye and Kojima to combine the teaching of Carbune for the above mentioned features, because the system implementation described can enable device to communicate with each other and handle specialized task (Carbune, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rikhye discloses: 9. A system, comprising: ([0004] computing system) Also see fig. 6 and fig. 9.
multiple apparatuses including a first apparatus comprising: ([0099] computing system 602 include one or more of: a desktop computing device, a laptop computing device, a standalone hardware device at least in part dedicated to an automated assistant,)
an audio input unit; ([0098] a microphone)
a communication unit; (fig. 9, network interface)
at least one processor; (fig. 9, processor(s))
a first instance of keyphrase recognition model; ([0007] a keyphrase matching model)
and at least one memory device storing processor-executable instructions that, in response to being executed by the at least one processor, cause the first apparatus at least to: (fig. 9, storage subsystem including memory, [0131] storage of instructions and data during program execution)
As for the rest of the claim, it is reciting similar elements from the method of claim 1, therefore the rejection applied to claim 1 is equally applicable.
Regarding Claim 15, Rikhye discloses: 15. An apparatus comprising: ([0004] computing system) Also see fig. 6 and fig. 9.
an audio input unit; ([0098] a microphone)
a communication unit; (fig. 9, network interface)
at least one processor; (fig. 9, processor(s))
and at least one memory device storing processor-executable instructions that, in response to being executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (fig. 9, storage subsystem including memory, [0131] storage of instructions and data during program execution)
As for the rest of the claim, it is reciting similar elements from the method of claim 1, therefore the rejection applied to claim 1 is equally applicable.
Regarding Claim 6, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 1 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye does not explicitly disclose that the device or apparatus is design to recognize specific voice commands intended for itself by first identifying the device in the command, and then sending the identified command to the relevant internal part of the apparatus or device which is basically what the claim is reciting.
Kojima further discloses: further comprising: receiving, by the first apparatus, a second audio signal representative of second speech; ([0028] For example, a user who has been in possession of a TV provided with an existing voice recognition function has been able to operate the TV merely by speaking an operation name such as “channel 4” or “increase volume” when using only the TV; however, after having introduced the integrated control system, the user usually has to speak a word such as “television” that indicates a device name, as in “television, channel 4” and “television, increase volume”.)
detecting, by the first apparatus, based on applying the keyphrase recognition model to the second speech, a second particular keyphrase of the multiple keyphrases, ([0028] For example, a user who has been in possession of a TV provided with an existing voice recognition function has been able to operate the TV merely by speaking an operation name such as “channel 4” or “increase volume” when using only the TV; however, after having introduced the integrated control system, the user usually has to speak a word such as “television” that indicates a device name, as in “television, channel 4” and “television, increase volume”.)
wherein the second particular keyphrase comprises a first string of characters defining a second identifier corresponding to the first apparatus ([0028] For example, a user who has been in possession of a TV provided with an existing voice recognition function has been able to operate the TV merely by speaking an operation name such as “channel 4” or “increase volume” when using only the TV; however, after having introduced the integrated control system, the user usually has to speak a word such as “television” that indicates a device name, as in “television, channel 4” and “television, increase volume”.)
and further comprises a second string of characters defining a second command; ([0028] For example, a user who has been in possession of a TV provided with an existing voice recognition function has been able to operate the TV merely by speaking an operation name such as “channel 4” or “increase volume” when using only the TV; however, after having introduced the integrated control system, the user usually has to speak a word such as “television” that indicates a device name, as in “television, channel 4” and “television, increase volume”.)
and sending, based on the second identifier, the second particular keyphrase to at least one component of the first apparatus. ([0028] For example, a user who has been in possession of a TV provided with an existing voice recognition function has been able to operate the TV merely by speaking an operation name such as “channel 4” or “increase volume” when using only the TV; however, after having introduced the integrated control system, the user usually has to speak a word such as “television” that indicates a device name, as in “television, channel 4” and “television, increase volume”.) Also see [0034] Thus, for example, a voice operation for which a voice input apparatus is used can be carried out for a plurality of target devices on a home network, and, for example, a voice operation in which the speaking of the device name has been omitted becomes possible with regard to a specific target device among the plurality of target devices that is associated with one voice input apparatus.] The reference describes a system where a user can operate multiple devices but also interact with a specific associated device without needing to state that device's name every time. This aligns with the claim’s mechanism of using a unique keyphrase/identifier to route a command to the “first apparatus” itself.
Where the rationale for the combination would be similar to the one already provided.
Regarding Claim 7, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/ discloses all the limitation of Claim 6 (See detail mapping from above).
Kojima further discloses: further comprising, in response to the detecting the second particular keyphrase, causing the first apparatus to execute one or more control operations. ([0033] a control command that causes the recognized operation content to be executed is transmitted to the specific target device corresponding to the voice input apparatus,) Also see [0034] Thus, for example, a voice operation for which a voice input apparatus is used can be carried out for a plurality of target devices on a home network, and, for example, a voice operation in which the speaking of the device name has been omitted becomes possible with regard to a specific target device among the plurality of target devices that is associated with one voice input apparatus.] The reference describes a system where a user can operate multiple devices but also interact with a specific associated device without needing to state that device's name every time. This aligns with the claim’s mechanism of using a unique keyphrase/identifier to route a command to the “first apparatus” itself.
Where the motivation to combine is the same as previous presented.
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses: All the limitations of Claim 9,
Rikhye further discloses: wherein the identifier corresponds to one of an individual apparatus ([0009] a smart coffee maker) [the claim only require one of the features recited]
and wherein the first string of characters precedes the second string of characters. ([0009] “Coffee maker, start brewing coffee” matches a particular keyphrase, the system can determine one or more actions corresponding to the keyphrase.) [the identifier Coffee maker is recited before the command]
Kojima also discloses wherein the identifier corresponds to one of an individual apparatus (see fig. 5A)
PNG
media_image3.png
546
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein the first string of characters precedes the second string of characters. ([0078] Here, the household device operation command DB 33 may manage the identifiers of devices corresponding to each device name. When the user has spoken “television, change to channel 2” to the television-dedicated remote control 2 for inputting voice, the device name “television” is obtained as a voice recognition result (S203).)
Where the rationale for the combination would be similar to the one provided earlier.
Regarding Claim 13, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 9 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye further discloses: wherein each one of the first apparatus and the at least one second apparatus is a stationary machine. ([0099] computing system 602 include one or more of: a desktop computing device,)
Regarding Claim 22, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 9 (See detail mapping from above).
Kojima further discloses: wherein the communication unit comprises a radio unit configured to wirelessly send the particular keyphrase to the at least one second apparatus. ([0054] The transmission unit 23 transmits the voice obtained from the sound pickup unit 20, and the remote control operation information obtained from the operation information generation unit 22, to the devices 10 to 12 and the integrated control device 3 by means of a communication method such as infrared, Bluetooth (registered trademark), or a wireless LAN or the like. At such time, with regard to the voice transmitted to the integrated control device, voice data obtained from the sound pickup unit 20 may be transmitted as it is, or a feature quantity may be extracted from the obtained voice data and the extracted feature quantity may be transmitted.)
Carbune also disclose this feature, see fig. 1 from above.
Where the rationale for the combination would be similar to the one provided earlier.
Claim 23 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune, and further in view of Rexach (US 20190090056).
Regarding Claim 3, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 1 (See detail mapping from above).
Although Rikhye disclose communication over a network in para 0099 and communicate with a number of peripheral devices in para 0127, it does not explicitly disclose a particular second apparatus of the at least one second apparatus communicating with the first apparatus and causing the first apparatus to execute one or more control operations corresponding to the second command.
Rexach (in a related field of controlling intelligent household appliance) discloses: further comprising: receiving, from a particular apparatus of the at least one second apparatus, ([0027] FIG. 7 illustrates bidirectional flow of data between appliances, according to an exemplary embodiment. [0127] The second appliance 32 analyzes the sensor data 37 collected at the first appliance 31 and sends command data 45 directly to the first appliance 31, or indirectly through the network device 14 and/or the server 13.) a second particular keyphrase of the multiple keyphrases, ([0159] the voice commands received at the control module 123 may include device identifiers that describe the auxiliary device and device functions to be performed)
wherein the second particular keyphrase comprises a first string of characters defining a second identifier corresponding to the first apparatus and further comprises a second string of characters defining a second command; ([0159] the voice commands received at the control module 123 may include device identifiers that describe the auxiliary device and device functions to be performed)
and causing the first apparatus to execute one or more control operations corresponding to the second command. ([0027] FIG. 7 illustrates bidirectional flow of data between appliances, according to an exemplary embodiment. [0127] The second appliance 32 analyzes the sensor data 37 collected at the first appliance 31 and sends command data 45 directly to the first appliance 31, or indirectly through the network device 14 and/or the server 13.)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune to combine the teaching of Rexach for the above mentioned features, because the system implementation described improve the communication networks by standardizing the exchange of data among household appliances (Rexach, [0057]).
Regarding Claim 11, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 9 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune do not explicitly disclose wherein the first apparatus and the at least one second apparatus are nodes in a peer-to-peer network.
Rexach (in a related field of controlling intelligent household appliance) discloses: wherein the first apparatus and the at least one second apparatus are nodes in a peer-to-peer network. ([0107] The wireless mesh network many include may to many communication. For example, the appliances of FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 2 may be directly connected to form a mesh network.)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune to combine the teaching of Rexach for the above mentioned features, because the system implementation described improve the communication networks by enhance performance and cost (eliminate centralize server) and reduce latency (direct communication) (Rexach, [0107]).
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach, and furthermore in view of Sinha (US 20210151057).
Regarding Claim 4, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 3 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach do not explicity disclose monitoring/detection of keyphrase within a defined time interval and executing the control operation upon satisfying the execution criterion.
Sinha (in the related field of voice activated control) discloses: wherein the second particular keyphrase is received within a defined time interval, ([0043] The keyword user ID 180 thus indicates a user who most recently spoke the keyword 170 (e.g., “hello assistant”). In a particular aspect, setting the active timestamp 156 starts a timer for the conversation session. For example, the conversation manager 150 ends the conversation session with the user 112 in response to determining that a command is not received from the user 112 within a threshold duration of a first time indicated by the active timestamp 156 (e.g., associated with receiving the keyword 170 from the user 112).)
the method further comprising determining, based on the defined time interval, that an execution criterion is satisfied prior to the causing the first apparatus to execute the one or more control operations. ([0043] The keyword user ID 180 thus indicates a user who most recently spoke the keyword 170 (e.g., “hello assistant”). In a particular aspect, setting the active timestamp 156 starts a timer for the conversation session. For example, the conversation manager 150 ends the conversation session with the user 112 in response to determining that a command is not received from the user 112 within a threshold duration of a first time indicated by the active timestamp 156 (e.g., associated with receiving the keyword 170 from the user 112).)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach/Sinha are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach to combine the teaching of Sinha for the above mentioned features, because a user experience is improved by not having to say the keyword before saying each command. Resource (e.g., processing cycles, time, or both) utilization is improved by the conversation manager not having to process (e.g., store, detect, or both) portions of the audio signal corresponding to the keyword prior to each command (Sinha, [0079]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Rexach/Sinha discloses all the limitation of Claim 4 (See detail mapping from above).
Sinha further discloses: wherein the determining that the execution criterion is satisfied comprises determining that multiple particular keyphrases has been received within the defined time interval, ([0043] The keyword user ID 180 thus indicates a user who most recently spoke the keyword 170 (e.g., “hello assistant”). In a particular aspect, setting the active timestamp 156 starts a timer for the conversation session. For example, the conversation manager 150 ends the conversation session with the user 112 in response to determining that a command is not received from the user 112 within a threshold duration of a first time indicated by the active timestamp 156 (e.g., associated with receiving the keyword 170 from the user 112). [0059] The system 100 thus enables the user 112 to initiate processing of multiple commands by saying the keyword 170 (e.g., “hello assistant”) followed by the multiple commands without having to say the keyword 170 before each command. The system 100 selectively processes a command based on determining that the command is received from the user 112 within a threshold duration of receiving another command from the same user 112 who spoke the keyword 170.) each one of the multiple particular keyphrases comprising the second identifier and the second command. (both Rikhye (para 0008-0009) and Rexach (para 0159) reference disclose keyphrases comprising identifier and command) see claims 1 and 3 from above)
Where the motivation to combine is the same as previous presented.
Claim 18 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is an apparatus claim that correspond to claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune, further in view of Sinha, and furthermore in view of Dusan (US 20210125609).
Regarding Claim 8, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 1 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye does not explicitly disclose determining sequence of words within the speech during a first time interval, and determining that a suffix of the sequence of words corresponds to the particular keyphrase.
Sinha (in the related field of voice activated control) discloses: wherein the detecting comprises: determining, using the keyphrase recognition model, a sequence of words within the speech during a first time interval; ([0043] The keyword user ID 180 thus indicates a user who most recently spoke the keyword 170 (e.g., “hello assistant”). In a particular aspect, setting the active timestamp 156 starts a timer for the conversation session. For example, the conversation manager 150 ends the conversation session with the user 112 in response to determining that a command is not received from the user 112 within a threshold duration of a first time indicated by the active timestamp 156 (e.g., associated with receiving the keyword 170 from the user 112).)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Sinha are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune to combine the teaching of Sinha for the above mentioned features, because a user experience is improved by not having to say the keyword before saying each command. Resource (e.g., processing cycles, time, or both) utilization is improved by the conversation manager not having to process (e.g., store, detect, or both) portions of the audio signal corresponding to the keyword prior to each command (Sinha, [0079]).
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Sinha Carbune do not explicitly disclose determining that a suffix of the sequence of words corresponds to the particular keyphrase.
Dusan (in the related field of keyphrase detection) discloses: determining that a suffix of the sequence of words corresponds to the particular keyphrase. ([0017] For example, the ATD algorithm may compare a portion of the microphone signal that corresponds to an end portion of the partially uttered key-phrase with an accelerometer signal that is received after the key-phrase has begun to be uttered. Specifically, the ATD algorithm may determine whether the wearer is saying the key-phrase based on cross-correlation of the portion of the microphone signal that contains an end portion of the key-phrase and the accelerometer signal (e.g., the more similar the signals the more likely the wearer is saying the key-phrase).) [suffix of the sequence of words is the ending portion of the sequence of words.]
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Sinha/Dusan are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Sinha to combine the teaching of Dusan for the above mentioned features, because the method improves keyphrase detection accuracy, robustness, and efficiency, especially in challenging acoustic environments (Dusan, [0017]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune, further in view of Geng (US 20190355354).
Regarding Claim 12, Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune discloses all the limitation of Claim 9 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye does not explicitly disclose wherein each one of the first apparatus and the at least one second apparatus is a mobile robot.
Geng (in the related field of system for speech interaction) discloses: wherein each one of the first apparatus and the at least one second apparatus is a mobile robot. ([0042] The command execution terminals 1031, 1032, and 1033 may be various electronic devices capable of receiving control commands sent by the speech processing terminals 1021, 1022 and capable of performing operations indicated by the control commands, including but not limited to televisions, speakers, sweeping robots, smart washing machines, smart refrigerators, smart ceiling lamps, curtains, air conditioners, security devices, and the like.)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Geng are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune to combine the teaching of Geng for the above mentioned features, because mobile robots can perform repetitive and labor extensive functions for a user (Geng, [0042]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune, and furthermore in view of Geng.
Regarding Claim 14, Rikhye discloses all the limitation of Claim 9 (See detail mapping from above).
Rikhye further discloses: and wherein a second particular apparatus of the at least one second apparatus is a stationary machine. ([0099] computing system 602 include one or more of: a desktop computing device,)
Rikhye does not explicitly disclose wherein a particular apparatus of the at least one second apparatus is a mobile robot. (Rikhye also does not explicitly disclose the second apparatus being a group or multiple apparatus)
Geng (in the related field of system for speech interaction) discloses: wherein a particular apparatus of the at least one second apparatus is a mobile robot. ([0042] The command execution terminals 1031, 1032, and 1033 may be various electronic devices capable of receiving control commands sent by the speech processing terminals 1021, 1022 and capable of performing operations indicated by the control commands, including but not limited to televisions, speakers, sweeping robots, smart washing machines, smart refrigerators, smart ceiling lamps, curtains, air conditioners, security devices, and the like.)
Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune/Geng are considered analogous art. Therefore, 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 teachings of Rikhye/Kojima/Carbune to combine the teaching of Geng for the above mentioned features, because mobile robots can perform repetitive and labor extensive functions for a user (Geng, [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Magi US 20200134151 – disclose multi-device interaction and authentication system. See Abstract, para 0036, 0077, 0100-0101, 0131, 0133, and 0138-0139 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phillip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific Time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on (571) 272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights