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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 2 December 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action have been fully considered but are moot because, upon review of the amended claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action have been withdrawn due to the claims not reciting an abstract idea and/or reciting a practical application for an abstract idea and/or reciting significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 March 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections (35 U.S.C 102/35 U.S.C 103) of Claims 1-5 from the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that claims with contingent limitations (e.g., “when”) are currently pending. The Examiner notes “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” (see MPEP 2111.04). If Applicant intends for the method claim scope to require each step to be performed in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner recommends Applicant amends the claim language from contingent language to “in response to” when supported by the original disclosure (Applicant should ensure all amendments have support in the original disclosure and should make any necessary grammatical adjustments).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an operation object that” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“an operation object” is a robot, or the like (see page 6 of the specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, and 5: “to the processing unit” should be corrected to proper antecedent basis or removed.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,417,328 (filed 9 December 2019 with inventors Katta et al., hereinafter, Katta) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,074,371 (Wang and Naidu, hereinafter, Wang) in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0045007 (hereinafter, Cash).
Regarding Claim 1, Katta discloses An operation control system (see at least FIG. 1) comprising:
an operation object that drives a driving device based on a control signal (see at least column 4 lines 30-40, column 4 lines 55-65, and FIG. 2A: “The device 110 may be, in some embodiments, a robotic assistant or “robot” that may move about a room or rooms to provide a user with requested information or services”; “capable of autonomous motion using one or motors powering one or more wheels, treads, robotic limbs, wings, propellers, or similar actuators”);
a microphone that acquires an utterance from a user (see at least column 31 lines 30-50 and FIG. 1: audio data obtained by the microphone);
at least one memory that stores executable instructions (see at least FIG. 11A and FIG. 12);
at least one processor that executes the executable instructions (see at least FIG. 11A and FIG. 12), the executable instructions comprising:
determining whether the utterance acquired by the microphone is an utterance corresponding to an execution command representing an operation to operate the operation object (see at least column 5 lines 1-10, column 8 lines 55-67, column 20 lines 1-20, and column 13 lines 40-60: “audio data representing an utterance is received (130) at a user device. A first speech-processing component, determines (132) that the audio data represents a command and sends (134), to a second speech-processing component, first data corresponding to the command”; “The speech-processing system may include a user-recognition component 310 that recognizes one or more users associated with data input to the speech-processing system. The user-recognition component 310 may take as input the audio data and/or the text data. The user-recognition component 310 may perform user recognition by comparing speech characteristics in the audio data to stored speech characteristics of users. The user-recognition component 310 may additionally or alternatively perform user recognition by comparing biometric data (e.g., fingerprint data, iris data, etc.), received by the speech-processing system in correlation with a user input, to stored biometric data of users. The user-recognition component 310 may additionally or alternatively perform user recognition by comparing image data (e.g., including a representation of at least a feature of a user), received by the speech-processing system in correlation with a user input, with stored image data including representations of features of different users. The user-recognition component 310 may perform other or additional user recognition processes, including those known in the art.”); and
executing processing of transmitting to the operation object the control signal corresponding to the execution command when it is determined that the utterance corresponding to the execution command is acquired (see at least column 5 lines 10-20, column 15 lines 60-65, and FIG. 1: “the user device 112 determines (410) a command spoken by, for example, the user 10”; “The second speech-processing component sends (144), to the autonomously motile device, second data corresponding to the command, and causes (146) the autonomously motile device to execute the command”);
a first output device that includes at least one of a display and a speaker, and notifies, when a first processing signal corresponding to the execution command is being transmitted to the operation object, surroundings of at least one of the user or the operation object that the first processing signal is being processed, and notifies, when a second processing signal indicating that the processing corresponding to the execution command cannot be executed to the processing unit is being received from the operation object, surroundings of at least one of the user and the operation object that the second processing signal is being processed (see at least column 17 lines 40-65, column 18 lines 35-50, column 19 lines 10-55, column 20 lines 1-20, and FIG. 11A: display 214 of user device 112; “The user device 112 may instead or in addition prompt the user 104 for confirmation of carrying out the command via an audio and/or video prompt”; “The speech-processing component 402 may receive, in response, an indication that the data was received. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may send (428), to the user device 112, an indication of successfully sending the command. This indication may include audio data such as a tone and/or audio data representing speech. The user device 112 may thereafter output (430) the indication and the autonomously motile device 110 may execute (432) the command”; “The user device 112 may thereafter send (518), to the autonomously motile device manager component 404, an indication of no connection. The autonomously motile device manager component 404 may, in response, send (520) an indication of the error to the AMD speech-processing component 402, which may output audio or video corresponding to the indication. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may instead or in addition send (522) the same or a corresponding indication to the user device 112, which may similarly output (524) corresponding audio and/or video”; “The user device 112 sends (620), to the autonomously motile device 110, a request to establish the connection. The autonomously motile device 110 and/or autonomously motile device manager component 404 may determine, as described herein, that the user 104 and/or user device 112 is authorized to establish the connection and send (662) connection data to the user device 112. The connection data may include data necessary to establish the connection, such as a network address of the autonomously motile device 110. The user device 112 and the autonomously motile device 110 may thereafter establish (624) the connection. As described above, the user device 112 may then send (626) an indication of the connection to the autonomously motile device manager component 404, which may authorize (628) execution of the command and send (630) corresponding authorization to the AMD speech-processing component 402. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may then send (632) the command and send (634) the indication of success. The user device 112 may output (636) corresponding audio and/or video, and the autonomously motile device 110 may execute (638) the command.”; “The autonomously motile device 110 and/or autonomously motile device manager component 404 may instead or in addition send the refusal if the autonomously motile device 110 is not capable of executing the command, for example if the autonomously motile device 110 lacks sufficient battery power, is damaged or inoperative, is stuck, and/or is blocked by one or more obstacles. The user device 112 and the autonomously motile device 110 may thereafter send (724) an indication that the connection is not established. The autonomously motile device manager component 404 may thereafter send (726) an error indication to the AMD speech-processing component 402, which may send (728) it or a corresponding indication to the user device 112. The user device 112 may then output (730) corresponding audio and/or video”); and
a second output device that includes at least one of a display and a speaker, notifies, when the first processing signal corresponding to the execution command is being transmitted to the operation object, the user that the first processing signal is being processed, and notifies, when the second processing signal is being received from the operation object, the user that the second processing signal is being processed (see at least column 17 lines 40-65, column 18 lines 35-50, column 19 lines 10-55, column 20 lines 1-20, and FIG. 11A: speaker 1121 of user device 112; “The user device 112 may instead or in addition prompt the user 104 for confirmation of carrying out the command via an audio and/or video prompt”; “The speech-processing component 402 may receive, in response, an indication that the data was received. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may send (428), to the user device 112, an indication of successfully sending the command. This indication may include audio data such as a tone and/or audio data representing speech. The user device 112 may thereafter output (430) the indication and the autonomously motile device 110 may execute (432) the command”; “The user device 112 may thereafter send (518), to the autonomously motile device manager component 404, an indication of no connection. The autonomously motile device manager component 404 may, in response, send (520) an indication of the error to the AMD speech-processing component 402, which may output audio or video corresponding to the indication. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may instead or in addition send (522) the same or a corresponding indication to the user device 112, which may similarly output (524) corresponding audio and/or video”; “The user device 112 sends (620), to the autonomously motile device 110, a request to establish the connection. The autonomously motile device 110 and/or autonomously motile device manager component 404 may determine, as described herein, that the user 104 and/or user device 112 is authorized to establish the connection and send (662) connection data to the user device 112. The connection data may include data necessary to establish the connection, such as a network address of the autonomously motile device 110. The user device 112 and the autonomously motile device 110 may thereafter establish (624) the connection. As described above, the user device 112 may then send (626) an indication of the connection to the autonomously motile device manager component 404, which may authorize (628) execution of the command and send (630) corresponding authorization to the AMD speech-processing component 402. The AMD speech-processing component 402 may then send (632) the command and send (634) the indication of success. The user device 112 may output (636) corresponding audio and/or video, and the autonomously motile device 110 may execute (638) the command.”; “The autonomously motile device 110 and/or autonomously motile device manager component 404 may instead or in addition send the refusal if the autonomously motile device 110 is not capable of executing the command, for example if the autonomously motile device 110 lacks sufficient battery power, is damaged or inoperative, is stuck, and/or is blocked by one or more obstacles. The user device 112 and the autonomously motile device 110 may thereafter send (724) an indication that the connection is not established. The autonomously motile device manager component 404 may thereafter send (726) an error indication to the AMD speech-processing component 402, which may send (728) it or a corresponding indication to the user device 112. The user device 112 may then output (730) corresponding audio and/or video”),
…, and
the second output device performs the notifying of the user by a different notification method between when the first processing signal corresponding to the execution command is being transmitted to the operation object and when the second processing signal is being received from the operation object (see at least column 18 lines 35-45: “The AMD speech-processing component 402 may send (428), to the user device 112, an indication of successfully sending the command. This indication may include audio data such as a tone and/or audio data representing speech”; different combinations of speech and/or tones (any that are not exactly the same are different) are the different notification method).
Katta does not explicitly disclose wherein during the first processing signal corresponding to the execution command being accepted, the second output device reduces the output of light or sound therefrom to reduce visual or auditory perception of the user.
Wang, in the same field of processing user inputs, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein during the first processing signal corresponding to the execution command being accepted, the second output device reduces the output of light or sound therefrom to reduce visual or auditory perception of the user (see at least column 46 lines 15-30: “During normal operation, a device 110 may perform audio muting upon detecting a wakeword to reduce a volume level of outgoing audio in order to improve speech recognition of an incoming voice command. For example, the device 110 may play music or other audio over speakers at a first volume level before detecting a wakeword represented in an utterance from a user local to the device 110. Upon detecting the wakeword, the device 110 may play the music or other audio at a second volume level (e.g., lower volume level) in order to capture the utterance with less noise or distortion caused by the music or other audio”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Katta and Wang (specifically, to add audio muting during command acceptance taught by Wang to Katta) with the motivation of improving the signal capturing (see at least Wang column 46 lines 15-30).
Additionally, Katta does not explicitly disclose an electric sensor that detects brain waves of a user to be acquired as brain information (Katta instead discloses a microphone that acquires an utterance from a user), determining whether the brain information acquired by the electric sensor is brain information corresponding to an execution command representing an operation to operate the operation object (Katta instead discloses determining whether the utterance acquired by the microphone is an utterance corresponding to an execution command representing an operation to operate the operation object), and executing processing of transmitting to the operation object the control signal corresponding to the execution command when it is determined that the brain information corresponding to the execution command is acquired (Katta instead discloses executing processing of transmitting to the operation object the control signal corresponding to the execution command when it is determined that the utterance corresponding to the execution command is acquired).
Cash, in the same field of processing user inputs, and therefore analogous art teaches “a virtual assistant that can be controlled by a human mind” (including as one specific embodiment, “a dry EEG sensor or patch worn on the forehead 18, which detects the brainwave activity from the user 20”) to complete “activities that would previously be possible through a voice-activated virtual assistant” (see at least [0007]-[0008], [0012], and FIG. 1); therefore, a substitution from using the microphone to input an utterance to an electric sensor to input brain waves / brain information would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of providing another input option for a user (see at least Cash [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Katta, Wang, and Cash combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Katta further discloses wherein the executable instructions further comprise determining whether the utterance acquired by the microphone is an utterance corresponding to a start command representing readiness to accept the execution command (see at least column 10 lines 45-67, column 16 lines 55-67, column 21 lines 1-20: wakeword detection is start command detection), and
wherein the first output device and the second output device each notifies, when it is determined that the utterance corresponding to the start command is acquired, that the first processing signal or the second processing signal is being processed (see at least mapping in Claim 1).
Additionally, determining whether the brain information acquired by the electric sensor is brain information corresponding to a start command is a simple substitution for determining whether the utterance acquired by the microphone is an utterance corresponding to a start command and when it is determined that the brain information corresponding to the start command is acquired is a simple substitution for when it is determined that the utterance corresponding to the start command is acquired for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katta in view of Wang in further view Cash in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0077794 (Kim et al., hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding Claim 3, the Katta, Wang, and Cash combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Katta further discloses wherein the executable instructions further comprise: determining, when a third matching rate between the utterance acquired by the microphone and an utterance of a start-command threshold value is equal to or higher than a first matching rate set in advance, that the utterance corresponds to the start command (see at least column 30 lines 55-67 and column 31 lines 1-5: “Once speech is detected in the audio received by the autonomously motile device 110 (or separately from speech detection), the autonomously motile device 110 may use the wakeword detection module 1138 to perform wakeword detection to determine when a user intends to speak a command to the autonomously motile device 110. This process may also be referred to as keyword detection, with the wakeword being a specific example of a keyword. Specifically, keyword detection is typically performed without performing linguistic analysis, textual analysis, or semantic analysis. Instead, incoming audio is analyzed to determine if specific characteristics of the audio match preconfigured acoustic waveforms, audio signatures, or other data to determine if the incoming audio “matches” stored audio data corresponding to a keyword”).
Additionally, a third matching rate between the brain information acquired by the electric sensor and brain information of a start-command threshold value is a simple substitution for a third matching rate between the utterance acquired by the microphone and an utterance of a start-command threshold value and that the brain information corresponds to the start command is a simple substitution for that the utterance corresponds to the start command for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Katta does not explicitly disclose varying the keyword match threshold (and for that reason does not explicitly disclose determining, when a fourth matching rate between the utterance acquired by the microphone and an utterance of an execution-command threshold value is equal to or higher than a second matching rate that is higher than the first matching rate, that the utterance corresponds to the execution command which, for the same reasons as Claim 1, would be a simple substitution to determining, when a fourth matching rate between the brain information acquired by the electric sensor and brain information of an execution-command threshold value is equal to or higher than a second matching rate that is higher than the first matching rate, that the brain information corresponds to the execution command).
Kim, in the same field of responding to user commands, and therefore analogous art, teaches varying the keyword match threshold (see at least [0017], [0080], and [0092]: “The speech trigger threshold can be lowered, for example, when perceived events indicate a user may be more likely to initiate a virtual assistant session using a speech trigger or a speech trigger may be more difficult to detect. This can minimize missed triggers by increasing the likelihood of triggering. Conversely, the speech trigger threshold can be raised, for example, when perceived events indicate a user may be less likely to initiate a virtual assistant session using a speech trigger. This can minimize false positive triggering events by decreasing the likelihood of triggering”).
Combining the teachings of Kim (varying the keyword match threshold) with the Katta, Wang, and Cash combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of providing a user experience with minimized missed triggers and false positive triggering events (see at least Kim [0018]). Therefore, in view of the Katta, Wang, Cash, and Kim combination, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, with have found determining, when a fourth matching rate between the brain information acquired by the electric sensor and brain information of an execution-command threshold value is equal to or higher than a second matching rate that is higher than the first matching rate, that the brain information corresponds to the execution command obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights