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 .
Claims in Consideration
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The applicant alleges that Venkata does not disclose at least: recognize that the voice input is one of a voice command, a voice prompt, or a voice dictation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 0309, Venkata teaches that voice input can include voice queries or commands (see mapping below).
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19-21, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettiross et al. (US 20060007190 A1, published: 1/12/2006), in view of Venkata et al. (US 20200117658 A1, published: 4/16/2020).
Claim 1. (Currently amended): Pettiross teaches a computer system comprising: a touchscreen (touch-sensitive or proximity-sensitive display [Pettiross, 0044]); a processor (processor [Pettiross, Claim 1]); and a memory coupled to the processor ("Computer storage media" includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology [Pettiross, 0027]), the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to, during execution of a text editing application (such user interfaces may include: (a) a display portion that displays an original text (e.g., a machine-generated text); and (b) a correction interface that displays an editable text portion corresponding to at least a portion of the original text, wherein the correction interface accepts input via a stylus to enable changes to the editable text portion on an individual character (i.e., a character-by-character) basis [Pettiross, 0008]):
receive a selection of textual content by a preset shape or gesture at a location of the touchscreen (when either machine-generated or handwritten text is selected in this example (such as the selected machine-generated word "get" 610 in the illustrated example), however, a more abbreviated correction interface 700 appears, at least initially. In the illustrated example, the abbreviated correction interface 700 includes a suggestion list 624 [Pettiross, 0078, FIG. 7A]); and
replace the selected textual content using the obtained input information (the user can select a specific character (or a character string, if available) from the menu 404 (e.g., by touching the pen on the desired alternative or in some other suitable manner), and machine-generated text corresponding to this selected alternative will replace the original machine-generated text [Pettiross, 0061]).
Pettiross does not teach receive a voice input; recognize that the voice input is one of a voice command, a voice prompt, or a voice dictation; obtain input information from the voice input based on the voice command, the voice prompt, or the voice dictation.
However, Venkata teaches receive a voice input (electronic text entered into the text field 2250 may be entered via voice [Venkata, 0325]); recognize that the voice input is one of a voice command, a voice prompt (voice queries and/or commands [Venkata, 0309]), or a voice dictation (Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]); obtain input information from the voice input based on the voice command, the voice prompt, or the voice dictation (electronic text entered into the text field 2250 may be entered via voice, i.e., by speaking into a microphone of the mobile device 2212; by typing text into the field 2250; or via other mechanisms (e.g., handwriting using a stylus and handwriting recognition software functionality). When voice is used to enter electronic text into the query entry field 2250, underlying speech-to-text functionality (which may include software, e.g., APIs running on the mobile device and/or on a server accessible to the mobile device 2212) converts spoken words and phrases into text, which is then automatically entered into the field [Venkata, 0325]. Determining when the natural language input has been entered via voice input, and then employing the voice input to automatically generate the first signal to yield the candidate match [Venkata, 0429]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the text editing alternative word generating invention of Pettiross to include the voice input feature of Venkata.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve upon the conversion of speech to text based upon a touch activation.
Claims 10 and 19, sharing similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Currently amended): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Venkata further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to obtain input information based on the input type by: recognizing that the voice input is the voice dictation that includes replacement voice content; and converting the replacement voice content to replacement textual content; wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to replace the selected textual content with the obtained input information by: replacing the selected textual content with the replacement textual content (Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]. Electronic text entered into the text field 2250 may be entered via voice, i.e., by speaking into a microphone of the mobile device 2212; by typing text into the field 2250; or via other mechanisms (e.g., handwriting using a stylus and handwriting recognition software functionality). When voice is used to enter electronic text into the query entry field 2250, underlying speech-to-text functionality (which may include software, e.g., APIs running on the mobile device and/or on a server accessible to the mobile device 2212) converts spoken words and phrases into text, which is then automatically entered into the field [Venkata, 0325]. Determining when the natural language input has been entered via voice input, and then employing the voice input to automatically generate the first signal to yield the candidate match [Venkata, 0429]).
Claim 11, sharing similar elements to claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim 3. (Currently amended): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to obtain input information based on the input type by: recognizing that the voice input is a voice command that indicates a search command; wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to replace the selected textual content with the obtained input information by: searching for one or more target texts which meet a requirement of the search command; and replacing the selected textual content with a selected target text of the one or more target texts (the correction interface, optionally along with the suggestion list portion and/or the task list portion, will appear automatically, e.g., as a "pop-up" panel or portion, when at least some portion of the original text is selected, and these elements of the interface may appear at any desired or suitable location on the display without departing from the invention [Pettiross, 0029]. receiving input (e.g., via any type of input element or device) selecting at least a portion of an original text [Pettiross, 0032]. This new electronic ink character then will be sent to the handwriting recognition engine, and a new machine-generated character corresponding to the newly handwritten character will replace the original machine-generated character [Pettiross, 0058]. Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]).
Claim 12, sharing similar elements to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim 5. (Currently amended): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Pettiross further teaches wherein the selected textual content is inputted by writing input, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: present one or more alternative word options based on the selected textual content, wherein the one or more alternative word options includes one or more words that are similar looking to the selected textual content (user interfaces according to at least some aspects of the invention further may include a "suggestion list" portion that includes at least one alternative, selectable using the pen, to substitute into the editable text portion (e.g., akin to suggestion lists provided by conventional spell checking, handwriting recognition, or speech recognition programs) [Pettiross, 0028]).
Claim 14, sharing similar elements to claim 5, is likewise rejected.
Claim 20. (Previously presented): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Venkata further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to start a voice input channel (electronic text entered into the text field 2250 may be entered via voice, i.e., by speaking into a microphone of the mobile device 2212; by typing text into the field 2250; or via other mechanisms (e.g., handwriting using a stylus and handwriting recognition software functionality). When voice is used to enter electronic text into the query entry field 2250, underlying speech-to-text functionality (which may include software, e.g., APIs running on the mobile device and/or on a server accessible to the mobile device 2212) converts spoken words and phrases into text, which is then automatically entered into the field [Venkata, 0325]).
Claim 21: The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Venkata further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to recognize that the voice input is the voice command by recognizing that the voice input corresponds to a particular predefined voice command in a set of predefined voice commands (Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]).
Claim 23: The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Venkata further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to recognize that the voice input is one of the voice command, the voice prompt, or the voice dictation, based on the preset shape or gesture (Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]).
Claim(s) 6 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettiross et al. (US 20060007190 A1, published: 1/12/2006) and Venkata et al. (US 20200117658 A1, published: 4/16/2020), and in further view of Jitkoff et al. (US 20120035924 A1, published: 2/9/2012).
Claim 6. (Currently amended): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. Pettiross further teaches alternative word options; present one or more word options based on the selected textual content (user interfaces according to at least some aspects of the invention further may include a "suggestion list" portion that includes at least one alternative, selectable using the pen, to substitute into the editable text portion (e.g., akin to suggestion lists provided by conventional spell checking, handwriting recognition, or speech recognition programs) [Pettiross, 0028]). The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, does not teach wherein the selected textual content is inputted by voice input, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: wherein the one or more word options includes one or more words that are homophones of the selected textual content.
However, Jitkoff teaches wherein the selected textual content is inputted by voice input, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: wherein the one or more word options includes one or more words that are homophones of the selected textual content (voice input that is identified as being a homophone (multiple terms with the same pronunciation but different meanings) and/or a homonym (multiple terms with the same spelling and pronunciation but different meaning) can be identified as ambiguous. For example, voice input that is interpreted as "fair," "sale," "waist," "example," "wore," and "cereal" are homophones (same pronunciation) of "fare," "sail," "waste," "egg sample," "war," and "serial," respectively, and can be identified as ambiguous. In another example, voice input that is interpreted as "tire" and "bank" are homonyms ("tire" can be part of a wheel (e.g., car tire) or a state of exhaustion [Jitkoff, 0029])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the text editing alternative word generating invention of the combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, to include the homophone feature of Jitkoff.
One would have been motivated to make this modification when delivering alternate words, to present similar sounding words that a user can choose from. Such would allow the user to weigh the correct alternate word based on presented similar sounding words.
Claim 15, sharing similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 7 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettiross et al. (US 20060007190 A1, published: 1/12/2006) and Venkata et al. (US 20200117658 A1, published: 4/16/2020), and in further view of Shin et al. (US 20220179618 A1, published: 6/9/2022).
Claim 7. (Currently amended): The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to obtain input information based on the input type by: recognizing that the voice input is the voice prompt (Examples of language input usable with certain embodiments discussed herein include voice queries and/or commands (which are then converted into text), text messages (e.g., Short Message Service (SMS) text messages), emails containing text, direct text entry, and so on. Natural language input provided to trigger a search for enterprise content is called a natural language query herein [Venkata, 0309]); and obtain one or more alternative word options; wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to replace the selected textual content with the obtained input information by: presenting the one or more alternative word options; and replacing the selected textual content with a selected alternative word option of the one or more alternative word options (user interfaces according to at least some aspects of the invention further may include a "suggestion list" portion that includes at least one alternative, selectable using the pen, to substitute into the editable text portion (e.g., akin to suggestion lists provided by conventional spell checking, handwriting recognition, or speech recognition programs) [Pettiross, 0028]).
The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, does not teach a prompt to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; providing the prompt to the AI model; generated by the AI model.
However, Shin teaches a prompt to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; providing the prompt to the AI model; generated by the AI model (the electronic device may be controlled based on a movement and/or gesture of a specific part of a user's face, in conjunction with a voice signal-based artificial intelligence platform [Shin, 0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the text editing alternative word generating invention of the combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, to include the artificial intelligent feature of Shin.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve presentation of alternative word options by determining them with artificial intelligence; which reduces the burden on users by improving suggestions.
Claim 16, sharing similar elements to claim 7, is likewise rejected.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettiross et al. (US 20060007190 A1, published: 1/12/2006) and Venkata et al. (US 20200117658 A1, published: 4/16/2020), and in further view of Lin (US 20210157415 A1, published: 5/27/2021).
Claim 24: The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, does not teach wherein the voice input is received after receiving the selection of textual content.
However, Lin teaches wherein the voice input is received after receiving the selection of textual content (referring to FIG. 2, in the text editing interface 20, an input operation area 22 of the voice input method may include a voice-matched text selection area 221, so that text information obtained through matching based on voice information of the user is displayed in the voice-matched text selection area 221, which is convenient for a user to select [Lin, 0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the text editing alternative word generating invention of the combination of Pettiross, and Venkata, to include the input feature of Lin.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to match voice and selected text content, to complete a single input.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172