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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The independent claims recite a method carried out by a playback device comprising, inter alia:
forming an arbitration group of playback devices that each detected first sound and identified a wake word;
evaluating which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to voice input included in the first sound;
determining a given playback device to respond; and
causing the given playback device to be designated as a response device and to respond to the voice input.
The claim recites the collection of information (sound detection and wake-word identification), processing/selection (evaluating and determining which device should respond), and an action based on that selection (designating and causing a device to respond). These steps recite an abstract process of organizing human activity/decision-making and information-handling, i.e., coordinating which device responds to voice input.
The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have identified mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and abstract ideas relating to information collection, analysis, and decision-making as judicial exceptions to § 101. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
Conclusion of Step 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea (coordinating/selecting a device to respond to detected audio/wake-word events).
Step 2 — Search for an “Inventive Concept” that Transforms the Abstract Idea into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claim language, as presented, recites generic “playback device(s)” and functional steps of forming a group, evaluating, determining, and causing a response. The claim does not recite specific, unconventional technical details, nor does it recite how the steps are performed in a particular technical manner.
The claim does not expressly recite any specific, non-generic improvements to computing or device operation such as particular signal-processing algorithms, concrete hardware implementations, novel low-latency arbitration protocols, specialized microphone-array processing, or particular network protocols that solve a technical problem. Instead, the claim uses conventional computer/device components and generic functional language to implement the abstract idea.
The mere use of generic devices (playback devices) and routine networked communications to perform the abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225; see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79; and Federal Circuit decisions holding that conventional computer components and routine functionality are insufficient to confer eligibility.
The Applicant’s specification, as of record, does not provide persuasive disclosure of a specific technical improvement (e.g., concrete signal-processing steps, specialized arbitration protocol with technical detail and behavior, or hardware architecture that solves a technical problem) sufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept that transforms the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Absent such limiting technical detail, the claim reads on the abstract coordination/selection process implemented on generic playback devices.
Conclusion of Step 2: The independent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The dependent claims recite similar language, such as determining data, extracting sound and detecting sound, which is non-statutory and mental processing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11/817,083. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, Tolomei discloses a playback device comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: form an arbitration group with one or more first additional playback devices, wherein each respective playback device of the arbitration group has detected first sound and identified a wake word based on the first sound as detected by the respective playback device; evaluate which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to voice input included in the first sound; based on the evaluation, determine a given playback device of the arbitration group that is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound; and based on the determination, cause the given playback device to (i) be designated as a response device of the arbitration group and (ii) respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to evaluate which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: determine a respective feature of the first sound as detected by each respective playback device of the arbitration group; and based on a comparison of the respective features of the playback devices of the arbitration group, determine that the given playback device is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the respective feature of the first sound as detected by each respective playback device of the arbitration group comprises a respective signal-to-noise ratios of the first sound as detected by the respective playback device (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the respective feature of the first sound as detected by each respective playback device of the arbitration group comprises a respective confidence level of the first sound as detected by the respective playback device (claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to cause the given playback device to respond to the voice input included in the first sound comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: cause the given playback device of the arbitration group to (i) extract, from the first sound, sound data comprising the voice input, (ii) process the extracted sound data and thereby determine a VAS response, and (iii) output the VAS response via an audio output interface of the given playback device (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to process the extracted sound data and thereby determine the VAS response comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: transmit the extracted sound data to a network-based system that is configured to evaluate sound data for voice input and determine a corresponding VAS response; and receive, from the network-based system, VAS response data that is indicative of the VAS response corresponding to the voice input included in the extracted sound data (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to cause the given playback device to be designated as the response device of the arbitration group comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: cause the given playback device, and not any other playback device of the arbitration group, to respond to any new voice inputs included in any new sound detected by any playback device of the arbitration group within a given period of time (claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, Tolomei discloses a device further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: continue to detect for new sound for a given period of time, wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to leave the arbitration group comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: after the given period of time has lapsed and no new sound has been detected, leave the arbitration group (claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the given playback device comprises the playback device (claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the arbitration group is a first arbitration group, the playback device further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the playback device is configured to: after causing the given playback device to respond to the voice input included in the first sound, leave the first arbitration group; after leaving the first arbitration group, form a second arbitration group with one or more second additional playback devices, wherein each respective playback device in the second arbitration group has detected second sound and identified a wake word based on the second sound as detected by the respective playback device; evaluate which playback device of the second arbitration group is to respond to voice input included in the second sound; and based on the evaluation, cause a given playback device of the second arbitration group to be designated as a response device of the second arbitration group (claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Tolomei discloses a device wherein the one or more first additional playback devices are different from the one or more second additional playback devices (claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, Tolomei discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a playback device to: form an arbitration group with one or more first additional playback devices, wherein each respective playback device of the arbitration group has detected first sound and identified a wake word based on the first sound as detected by the respective playback device; evaluate which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to voice input included in the first sound; based on the evaluation, determine a given playback device of the arbitration group that is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound; and based on the determination, cause the given playback device to (i) be designated as a response device of the arbitration group and (ii) respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, Tolomei discloses medium wherein the program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the playback device to evaluate which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound comprise program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the playback device to: determine a respective feature of the first sound as detected by each respective playback device of the arbitration group; and based on a comparison of the respective features of the playback devices of the arbitration group, determine that the given playback device is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, Tolomei discloses medium wherein the respective features of the first sound comprise respective confidence levels of the first sound as detected by the playback devices of the arbitration group (claim 14).
Regarding claim 19, Tolomei discloses a method comprising: forming an arbitration group with one or more first additional playback devices, wherein each respective playback device of the arbitration group has detected first sound and identified a wake word based on the first sound as detected by the respective playback device; evaluating which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to voice input included in the first sound; based on the evaluation, determining a given playback device of the arbitration group that is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound; and based on the determination, causing the given playback device to (i) be designated as a response device of the arbitration group and (ii) respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 18).
Regarding claim 20, Tolomei discloses a method wherein evaluating which playback device of the arbitration group is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound comprises: determining a respective feature of the first sound as detected by each respective playback device of the arbitration group; and based on a comparison of the respective features of the playback devices of the arbitration group, determining that the given playback device is to respond to the voice input included in the first sound (claim 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657