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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 17 of Co-pending Application No. 18/338,827. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because adding inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the insertion of an element, e.g. “determine a signal indicative of a position of a tongue of the user”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Insertion of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application No. 18/427,627
Co-pending Application No. 18/338,827
1. A wearable device comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure signals at a face, head, or neck of a user, the signals being indicative of facial activity associated with an act performed by the user;
a signal analysis component configured to analyze the signals and generate an activation signal responsive to results of the analysis of the signals; and
a control component configured to activate the wearable device in response to the activation signal.
2. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to determining the user is silently speaking.
3. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to: determining the user is silently speaking or determining the user has performed a particular action.
4. The wearable device of claim 3, wherein the particular action includes the user clenching their teeth, tapping a cheek, or an action associated with the user preparing to speak.
18. A method for controlling a wearable device comprising: recording signals indicative of facial activity associated with an act performed by a user, at a face, head, or neck of the user; analyzing the recorded signals; and activating the wearable device based on the analyzing.
1. A wearable device, comprising:
a plurality of electrodes, wherein a subset of the plurality of electrodes are configured to measure electrical signals at a face, head, or neck of a user, the electrical signals being indicative of the user's speech activation patterns while the user is silently speaking or whispering;
one or more sensors configured to determine a signal indicative of a position of a tongue of the user, at least one of the one or more sensors being disposed adjacent a cheek of the user;
a processing module configured to receive the electrical signals from the plurality of electrodes and the signal indicative of the position of the tongue of the user and perform one or more processing operations of the electrical signals; and a communication module communicatively coupled to an external device.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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: “component” in claims 1-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kapur et al., (US Pub. 2019/0074012).
Regarding claim 18, Kapur discloses a wearable device comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure signals at a face, head, or neck of a user, the signals being indicative of facial activity associated with an act performed by the user (Fig. 9, [0008][0079][0080] detecting internal articulation of a user by measuring electrical signals at electrodes positioned on a user's skin, face and neck);
a signal analysis component configured to analyze the signals and generate an activation signal responsive to results of the analysis of the signals (Fig. 9, [0079][0080] measuring low-voltage electrical signals and analyzing encoded data from measurement to perform natural language processing); and
a control component configured to [activate the wearable device] in response to the activation signal (Fig. 10, [0025][0197] “for each measurement frame … if the RMS voltage is less than or equal to the cutoff voltage, the measurement frame is retained and further processed” in order to recognize content of internally articulated speech by the user; [0163] “detecting neural activation of muscles that is caused by, triggered by, … the internal articulation”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapur et al., (US Pub. 2019/0074012) in view of Maisels et al., (US Pub. 2023/0230574).
Regarding claim 1, Kapur discloses a wearable device comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure signals at a face, head, or neck of a user, the signals being indicative of facial activity associated with an act performed by the user (Fig. 9, [0008][0079][0080] detecting internal articulation of a user by measuring electrical signals at electrodes positioned on a user's skin, face and neck);
a signal analysis component configured to analyze the signals and generate an activation signal responsive to results of the analysis of the signals (Fig. 9, [0079][0080] measuring low-voltage electrical signals and analyzing encoded data from measurement to perform natural language processing); and
a control component configured to [activate the wearable device] in response to the activation signal (Fig. 10, [0025][0197] “for each measurement frame … if the RMS voltage is less than or equal to the cutoff voltage, the measurement frame is retained and further processed” in order to recognize content of internally articulated speech by the user; [0163] “detecting neural activation of muscles that is caused by, triggered by, … the internal articulation”).
Kapur does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Maisels does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
a control component configured to [activate the wearable device] in response to the activation signal (Maisels, [0052] automatically switch from idle mode to high power consumption mode based on differing trigger types, such as mouth slightly open, or a pre-set sequence of motions like tongue movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and system of silent speech interface as taught by Kapur with the method of determining speech from facial skin movement as taught by Maizels to improve human-machine communication and audio quality of conversations made by mobile telephones in loud public spaces, by cleaning and removing background signals from audio (Maisels, [0045][0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to determining the user is silently speaking (Kapur, Fig. 9 and [0008][0035][0079][0080] a silent speech interface (SSI) system detects silent, internal articulation of words by a human user; the SSI system facilitates private communication by a user wearing the SSI).
Regarding claim 3, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to: determining the user is silently speaking or determining the user has performed a particular action (Kapur, [0011]-[0013] determining user’s internal articulation based on silently forming the word or movement of the Articulator Muscles).
Regarding claim 4, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Maisels further discloses:
wherein the particular action includes the user clenching their teeth, tapping a cheek, or an action associated with the user preparing to speak (Maisels, [0052] automatically switch from idle mode to high power consumption mode based on differing trigger types, such as mouth slightly open, or a pre-set sequence of motions like tongue movement).
Regarding claim 5, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Maisels further discloses:
wherein the control component is configured to activate the wearable device by activating a communication component of the device and transmitting the signals to a connected device (Maisels, [0046][0050][0051] transmitting the encoded signals over the communication link to smartphone and server 38).
Regarding claim 6, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Maisels further discloses:
wherein the control component is configured to activate the wearable device by activating a processor of the device to determine one or more words or phrases from the measured signals (Maisels, [0092][0096] ASR and NLP algorithms are used for determining on e or more words from the encoded signals).
Regarding claim 7, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to determining a signal of the measured signals is above a respective threshold (Kapur, Fig. 10, [0076][0077] measuring a signal at the measurement electrodes may have an RMS voltage that is greater than or equal to 8 microvolts; [0090]-[0100] calculating one or more features of the 1D vector of voltage measurements).
Regarding claim 8, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 7, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises: a plurality of [EMG electrodes configured to record signals at a cheek of the user associated with movement of facial muscles of the user]; and wherein the signal analysis component is configured to generate the activation signal in response to determining a signal from the [EMG] electrodes is above a respective threshold (Kapur, Fig. 10, [0076][0077] measuring a low voltage signal, which is produced during internal articulation, at the measurement electrodes may have an RMS voltage that is greater than or equal to 8 microvolts).
Kapur does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Maisels does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
a plurality of [EMG electrodes configured to record signals at a cheek of the user associated with movement of facial muscles of the user] (Maisels, [0021][0054] receiving EMG signals, which provide additional information regarding the activation of the user's facial muscles around user’s cheek).
Regarding claim 19, Kapur discloses the method of claim 18, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the analyzing comprises determining a probability the user is silently speaking and the [activating] is performed in response to determining the probability is greater than a threshold probability (Fig. 10, [0025][0197] “for each measurement frame … if the RMS voltage is less than or equal to the cutoff voltage, the measurement frame is retained and further processed” in order to recognize content of internally articulated speech by the user; [0163] “detecting neural activation of muscles that is caused by, triggered by, … the internal articulation”).
Kapur does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Maisels does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
[activating] is performed in response to determining the probability is greater than a threshold probability (Maisels, [0052] automatically switch from idle mode to high power consumption mode based on differing trigger types, such as mouth slightly open, or a pre-set sequence of motions like tongue movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and system of silent speech interface as taught by Kapur with the method of determining speech from facial skin movement as taught by Maizels to improve human-machine communication and audio quality of conversations made by mobile telephones in loud public spaces, by cleaning and removing background signals from audio (Maisels, [0045][0096]).
Regarding claim 20, Kapur discloses the method of claim 18, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the analyzing comprises determining a [probability] the user is silently speaking and determining a [probability] the user has performed a particular action and the activating is performed in response to determining the [probability] the user is silently speaking or the [probability the user has performed a particular action is greater than a respective threshold probability] (Kapur, Fig. 9 and [0008][0035][0079][0080] a silent speech interface (SSI) system detects silent, internal articulation of words by a human user; the SSI system facilitates private communication by a user wearing the SSI); [0011]-[0013] determining user’s internal articulation based on silently forming the word or movement of the Articulator Muscles).
Kapur does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Maisels does explicitly teach the bracketed limitation:
determining a [probability] the user has performed a particular action and the activating is performed in response to determining the [probability] the user is silently speaking or the [probability the user has performed a particular action is greater than a respective threshold probability (Maisels, [0052] automatically switch from idle mode to high power consumption mode based on differing trigger types, such as mouth slightly open, or a pre-set sequence of motions like tongue movement).
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapur et al., (US Pub. 2019/0074012) in view of Maisels et al., (US Pub. 2023/0230574) and further in view of Li et al., (US Pub. 2024/0203408, priority date: 2021-08-30).
Regarding claim 11, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 7. Kapur in view of Maisels does not explicitly however Li does explicitly teach:
in response to determining the signal is above the respective threshold, perform template matching of parts of the signal to parts of a known speech signal; and in response to determining, based on the template matching, a measure of similarity between the signal and the known signal is above a threshold level of similarity, generate the activation signal (Li, [0003] The sensor collects a vibration signal of a vocal cord generated when a user speaks, and converts the vibration signal into an electrical signal, where the electrical signal is referred to as a bone conduction signal; [0017] “when the confidence exceeds a confidence threshold, and the plurality of posterior probability vectors and a plurality of template vectors meet a distance condition…when the confidence condition is met and templates match, it is determined that it is detected that the command word includes the wakeup word”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and system of silent speech interface as taught by Kapur in view of Maisels with the method of speech recognition using template and a bone conduction signal as taught by Li to improve accuracy of wakeup word detection, and further reduce false wakeup (Li, [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Kapur in view of Maisels and further in view of Li discloses the wearable device of claim 11, and Li further discloses:
wherein the signal analysis component is further configured to: in response to determining the signal is above the respective threshold, perform template matching of parts of the signal to parts of a known action signal (Li, [0017] when the confidence condition is met and templates match, it is determined that it is detected that the command word”).
Regarding claim 14, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 1, and Maisels further discloses:
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises: a plurality of EMG electrodes configured to record signals at a cheek of the user associated with movement of facial muscles of the user (Maisels, [0021][0054] receiving EMG signals, which provide information regarding the activation of the user's facial muscles around user’s cheek); and
wherein the signal analysis component is further configured to: [determine a whether the wearable device has proper placement on the user by analyzing an impedance] of a subset of EMG electrodes of the plurality of EMG electrodes (Maisels, [0036] “builds on a system for sensing neural activity, the detection focused on the facial region, which allows the readout of residual of muscular activation of the facial region”).
Kapur in view of Maisels does not explicitly however Li does explicitly teach:
[determine a whether the wearable device has proper placement on the user by analyzing an impedance]; and in response to determining the wearable device has proper placement on the user, analyze the signals (Li, [0019] “obtaining a bone conduction registration signal, where the bone conduction registration signal includes the complete information of the wakeup word; and determining the confidence threshold and the plurality of template vectors based on the bone conduction registration signal and the phoneme sequence corresponding to the wakeup word”).
Regarding claim 15, Kapur in view of Maisels discloses the wearable device of claim 7, and Kapur further discloses:
wherein the signal analysis component is further configured to: in response to determining the signal is above the respective threshold, perform analog to digital conversion of the signals at a first sampling frequency to generate first digital signals (Kapur, [0079] converting this amplified analog signal to a digital signal; [0086] “The amplified signals from multiple electrodes may be concatenated into a signal vector 1011 for each temporal window of a real-time signal”).
Kapur in view of Maisels does not explicitly teach however Li does explicitly teach:
analyze the first digital signals to determine a probability of whether the user is speaking; and generate the activation signal in response to determining the probability is above a first threshold probability ([0017] “when the confidence exceeds a confidence threshold, and the plurality of posterior probability vectors and a plurality of template vectors meet a distance condition…when the confidence condition is met and templates match, it is determined that it is detected that the command word includes the wakeup word”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659