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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Non-Final Office Action from 10/24/2025, Applicant has filed an amendment on 4/24/2026. In this reply, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 15 to further specify that establishing a connection between a user device and a target service is via a voice assistant service that is separate from the user device and the target service and not included in the connection, further specify that receiving steps are via the connection, adding a step for identifying sensitive information included in the second user voice input, further describe that generating second user voice input segments involves sensitive information being split into two or more of the plurality of second user voice input segments, add a wherein clause that the plurality of second user text input segments are generated such that the sensitive information is split into two or more the plurality of second user text input segments, and that further specifying the last transmitting step is performed via the established connection.
Applicant has also argued that the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations added via the instant amendment, particularly those limitations related to the established connection (Remarks, Pages 11-12). These arguments have been fully considered, however, are moot with respect to the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the instant amendments and further in view of Singh, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2024/0346175 A1).
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 7-8 resolve the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Remarks, Page 9). In response to the correction of the antecedent basis issues in these claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is now moot and has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant has traversed the patent subject matter eligibility rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101. In particular, Applicant contends that the claims have been amended in a manner to included an establishment of a particular connection that cannot reasonably be construed as relating to a method for organizing human behavior. Applicant also points to paragraph 7 of the instant specification as providing a technical improvement in the form of enhanced privacy and prevention of voice assistant eavesdropping on a private conversation between a user and a target service. Accordingly, Applicant concludes that claims 1-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Remarks, Page 9).
In response, it is agreed that establishing the particularly defined communication that is then relied upon in a secure communication procedure involving a user device, target service, and a voice assistant is not reasonably categorized as a step for organizing human behavior and is at least worth setting aside for further consideration in step 2A prong 1 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG). The following step 2A prong 2 analysis, the specification as pointed out by Applicant, clearly sets forth a particular technical improvement in the field of secure voice assistant processing realized through the use of the claimed, actively-utilized particular connection. As such, the independent claims and their associated dependent claims that incorporate such subject matter by virtue of their dependency are directed towards patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2 of the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant argues that Di Fabbrizio, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2021/0158811 A1) fails to teach a voice assistant service that establishes a voice assistant service that "is separate from the user device and the target service, and wherein the voice assistant service is not included in the connection" because the Dialog Processing Platform (DPP) of Di Fabbrizio is shown to include the target services of the tenant subsystems. Accordingly, Applicant argues that the prior art teachings are "the opposite of the intent of the pending claims" (Remarks, Pages 11-12).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are based upon Di Fabbrizio’s showing of the tenant subsystems being depicted as a part of the dialog processing platform DPP (120) in Figs. 1 and 3. Contrary to Applicant’s interpretation of Di Fabbrizio, these tenant components are not the actual service that has a connection established with the client device. Instead, the DPP acts as an intermediary or proxy with a backend of an entity that enables product ordering such as shoes.
Specifically, see that Di Fabrizio calls the tenant components (e.g., 130A or B a "portal to provide natural language processing”). Paragraph 0041 describes that the actual tenants or entities provides products and services. Further in paragraph 0045 see that entity or tenants or entities have websites and see also Paragraphs 0024-0025 describing “backend architecture” having a website that is unable to process voice inputs without the intermediary DPP have APIs received from the DPP that get incorporated into their website "to enable support for text and/or voice modalities." See also paragraph 0053 where the actual tenants or administrators for those tenants access the portal (e.g., shown in Fig. 3 as element 320) to configure natural language processing tenant component(s) and 0054 again discussing APIs used to interface between tenant data sources (e.g., catalog data and order status) and the DPP. Note that the DPP features multiple I/O interfaces for interacting with both a tenant and a customer/user (Fig. 3, Elements 324, 328, and 332). Lastly, see the operations described in Paragraphs 0089-0093 in which a user smartphone accesses an e-commerce web site where the DPP acts as an intermediary or "proxy" (see Paragraph 0104) between the client device (i.e., smartphone) and the target entity (e.g., via their website).
Thus, Applicant points to the tenant subsystems that specify relate to dialog support/natural language processing for tenants, however, as shown based upon these preceding discussions these components related to natural language processing are not the actual tenants or entities that provide the goods and services having websites that the user is interacting with via the modalities provided by the DPP of Di Fabrizio.
Although only briefly highlighted in Applicant arguments as differentiating from the prior art of record, the particular limitation of “the voice assistant service is not included in the connection” is not reasonably provided by the teachings of Di Fabrizio. While the website application at the backend may include a limited conversational agent (see Paragraph 0025), there is no discussion of an embodiment in which the voice assistant service is cut out or “not included in the connection” between the user device (e.g., smartphone) and target service (e.g., website backend of a shoe retailer). It is noted, however, that per an update search performed responsive to the instant amendment, the additional teachings of Singh, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2024/0346175 A1) resolve the deficiencies of Di Fabrizio in view of Ganong, III, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0394169 A1). Accordingly, Applicant arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the instant amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Fabbrizio, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2021/0158811 A1) in view of Ganong, III et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0394169 A1) and further in view of Singh, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2024/0346175 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Di Fabbrizio discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, by the target service, a first user voice input wherein the first user voice input was input to the user device (target service (i.e., tenant/entity subsystem) receives audio data for a user utterance from a client device, Paragraphs 0031-0032, 0036, 0038 and 0072-0073; Fig. 3, Elements 130A, 130B);
generating, by the target service, a first voice response in relation to the first user voice input (text-to-speech synthesis engine of the tenant subsystem generates a "verbalized...response" to a "user's query," Paragraphs 0040 and 0051);
transmitting the first voice response to the user device, wherein the first voice response is transmitted to the user device via a connection established by a voice assistant service between the user device and the target service (DPP server/Orchestrator acts as a proxy between the tenant subsystems and a client device and provides the verbalized response to a user, Paragraphs 0034, 0078, and 0102-0104; see also the network connection to a client device in Fig. 1 allowing the transmission and delivery of a voice output to a user (e.g., regarding an order status);
receiving, from the user device, a second user voice input (target service (i.e., tenant/entity subsystem) receives audio data for a user utterance from the client device, Paragraphs 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0072-0073; Fig. 3, Elements 130A, 130B; note that user utterances are part of a dialog session that includes multiple user turns in a “dialog sequence”, Paragraphs 0023, 0033, 0039 and 0082); and
generating, by the target service, a second user text input in relation to the second user voice input (use of ASR by target tenant service to generate a textual output corresponding to a user utterance, Paragraphs 0036 and 0038);
generating, by the target service, a second voice response in relation to the second user text input (text-to-speech synthesis engine of the tenant subsystem generates a "verbalized...response" to a "user's query," Paragraphs 0040 and 0051); note that user utterances are part of a dialog session that includes multiple system response turns in a “dialog sequence”, Paragraphs 0023, 0033, 0039 and 0082); and
transmitting the second voice response to the user device (DPP server/Orchestrator acts as a proxy between the tenant subsystems and a client device and provides the verbalized response to a user, Paragraphs 0029. 0034, 0078, and 0102-0104; see also the network connection to a client device in Fig. 1 allowing the transmission and delivery of a voice output to a user (e.g., regarding an order status); note that user utterances are part of a dialog session that includes multiple system response turns in a “dialog sequence”, Paragraphs 0023, 0033, 0039 and 0082).
Although Di Fabbrizio teaches a dialog system method similar to the claim invention to process and reply to a user's utterance in dialog turns, Di Fabbrizio does not teach the piecewise segment-based voice transcription set forth in claim 1 to generate the "second user text input." Ganong, however, discloses:
generating a plurality of second user voice input segments based on the second user voice input, wherein the plurality of second user voice input segments are generated such that the sensitive information is split into two or more of the plurality of second user voice input segments (“input speech signal maybe split 1006 into the one or more sensitive content portions and the one or more non-sensitive content portions based upon, at least in part, the one or more splitting points,” Paragraph 0074; Fig. 11, Element 1110 where the more than one sensitive portions reads on the sensitive information speech being split into at least two portions);
transmitting each respective second user voice input segment of the plurality of second user voice input segments to a different speech-to-text converter, wherein the different speech-to-text converters generate a plurality of second user text input segments, and wherein the plurality of second user text input segments are generated such that the sensitive information is split into two or more of the plurality of second user text input segments (sending the portions of the speech splitter output to different ASR transcription systems to generate corresponding transcriptions where these portions include more than one (i.e., 2 or more) sensitive portions (See Fig. 11, Elements 1110, 1112, 1114, 1120, and 1128); see also Paragraphs 0074, 0085, 0086 (separate transcription performed for PII and PHI), and 0090-0092); and
combining the plurality of second user text input segments to generate the second user text input (combiner that operates "to form a combined transcription (e.g., combined transcription 1134) representative of all of the content (i.e., sensitive and non-sensitive portions) of input speech signal," Paragraphs 0086 and 0096, Fig. 11, Elements 1132 and 1134).
Di Fabbrizio and Ganong are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in network-based speech recognition services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to utilize the splitting/combining approach to speech transcription taught by Ganong to transcribe certain speech inputs in the dialog system of Di Fabbrizio to provide a predictable result of accurately transcribing speech while better protecting sensitive/confidential information (Ganong, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
Although Di Fabbrizio teaches an entity that is separate from a voice assistant platform (Paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0045), Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong do not teach the establishment, by a voice assistant service, a connection between a user device and a target service, wherein the voice assistant service is separate from the user device and the target service, and wherein the voice assistant service is not included in the connection wherein that connection is then used to: (i) receive a first voice input to the user device, (ii) transmit a voice response to the user device, (iii) receive a second user voice input that is also analyzed by identifying included sensitive information, and (iv) transmit the second voice response to the user device.
In curing these deficiencies of Di Fabbirizio in view of Ganong, Singh discloses:
establishing, by a voice assistant service, a connection between a user device and a target service, wherein the voice assistant service is separate from the user device and the target service, and wherein the voice assistant service is not included in the connection (voice assistant located in a cloud server is used to analyze a voice query, identify intent, and connect the user device directly to a target application service via a "second communication path," Paragraphs 0060 and 0062; Fig. 4A, Element 405, Fig. 4B, Element 422; note that this second path/channel "bypasses the virtual assistant" such that the voice assistant service is not included in the communication as claimed, Paragraphs 0014 and 0067; see also a depiction of the private second channel (112) between the client device (110) and service application (105) in Fig. 1).
Note that Singh also features a process for identifying sensitive information included in the second user voice input (see “private data” identification in Paragraphs 0061 and 0063 and various examples such as social security numbers in Paragraph 0067) and that once the communication channel is established, it can be used to receive first and second client device voice inputs and transmit first and second voice responses (see different types of voice queries and corresponding responses, Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0045 ("Responses to the query may be obtained at the conversational application 105 through the second communication channel 112 rather than through the first communication channel, for example, so that private data is directly shared with the conversational application rather than with the VA cloud service 109"), 0046 ("the conversational application 105 may directly capture the user's response, bypassing the VA cloud service 109"), 0048, 0050, 0052, 0055, and 0067).; see also the second communication channel (112) between application (105) and client device (110) in Fig. 1).
Di Fabbrizio, Ganong, and Singh are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in network-based speech recognition services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add the second channel of Singh to communicate directly with a service application to the dialog system utilizing splitting/combining as taught by Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong to provide a predictable result in the form of better preventing overcollection of private data (Singh, Paragraph 0056).
With respect to Claim 2, Di Fabbrizio further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the target service from the voice assistant service, a request to initiate a conversation between the user device and the target service, wherein the first user voice input comprises the request to initiate the conversation (initiating user query indicative of an "objective that the user seeks to accomplish in cooperation with the tenant" (e.g., starting a dialog with that particular target service/tenant) that is then received by that tenant module for ASR, Paragraphs 0038, 0072-0073 and 0095).
With respect to Claim 5, Ganong further discloses:
wherein identifying the sensitive information included in the second user voice input comprises identifying a first portion of the sensitive information and a second portion of the sensitive information, wherein the first portion and the second portion do not overlap (identification of different, non-overlapping, splitting points between speech segments for different types of sensitive information such as PII and PHI, Paragraphs 0083-0084 and 0086); and
wherein generating the plurality of second user voice input segments comprises assigning the first portion of the sensitive information to a first segment of the plurality of second user voice input segments, and assigning the second portion of the sensitive information to a second segment of the plurality of second user voice input segments (segments are split and assigned according to sensitive information types where examples given include a PHI speech segment and a PII speech segment, Paragraphs 0083-0084 and 0086).
With respect to Claim 8, Di Fabbrizio further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the target service comprises a speech-to-text converter; and in response to determining that the target service does not comprise the speech-to-text converter, generating, by the target service, the second user text input using the different speech-to-text converters (determining whether a tenant service has a corresponding ASR engine in a “tenant profile”, otherwise a generic different (e.g., publicly available) engine is selected and used for textual output, Paragraphs 0073 and 0096).
With respect to Claim 9, Ganong further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether a request to enable enhanced privacy for the connection between the user device and the target service has been received; and in response to determining that the request to enable enhanced privacy has been received: transmitting each of the plurality of second user voice input segments to the different speech-to-text converters (request is received as specific rules/examples/categories for identifying PII/PHI that when detected utilizes multiple speech-to-text transcribers, Paragraphs 0079, 0082, and 0091-0092).
With respect to Claim 10, Ganong further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the user device, (1) the second user voice input (user speech input, Paragraphs 0023 and 0076) and (2) one or more candidate locations in the second user voice input for segmentation (user interface for providing rules, examples, etc. for identifying sensitive content to split speech, Paragraph 0079); and generating the plurality of second user voice input segments by segmenting the second user voice input based on the one or more candidate locations in the second user voice input for segmentation received from the user device (such information is used in the segmentation process for transcription, Paragraphs 0079-0080).
With respect to Claim 14, Ganong further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the user device, an indication of a set of speech-to-text converters (indication provided as the term of term/segment in the utterance qualifying as PII and/or PHI, Paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0082); and transmitting each respective second user voice input segment of the plurality of second user voice input segments to a different speech-to-text converter of the set of speech-to-text converters (the preceding indications are used to select and set speech segments to different transcription processes, Paragraphs 0091-0092; Fig. 11, Elements 1110, 1120, and 1128).
Claim 15 is directed towards an embodiment variation of a system carrying out the functionality of method claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Moreover, Di Fabbrizio teaches control circuitry in the form of a processor (Fig. 1, Element 124) as well as input/output circuitry in the form of a communications module (Fig. 1, Element 122 and Paragraphs 0031 and 0034).
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to Claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to Claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Fabbrizio, et al. in view of Ganong, III et al. in view of Singh, et al. and further in view of Jones, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0238120 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh teaches the method for a spoken dialog system utilizing multiple tenant services and corresponding submodules along with piecewise speech transcription as applied to Claim 1. Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh do not teach that the first user voice input comprises a wake phrase and a target service identifier, and wherein the target service is identified based on the target service identifier in the first user voice input. Jones, however, discloses that a voice input can comprise a wake word in the form of a phrase where the voice input also contains an identification of "a particular voice service to process the request" to send the voice input to that particular voice service associated with that type of command (Paragraphs 0028 and 0142).
Di Fabbrizio, Ganong, Singh and Jones are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in network-based speech recognition services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to utilize the wakeword processing taught by Jones in the spoken dialog system of Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh to provide a predictable result of better ensuring that spoken audio is intended for a device and/or allowing a device to operate in a low power mode (by only having to listen for a wakeword initially).
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to Claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 6, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Fabbrizio, et al. in view of Ganong, III et al. in view of Singh, et al., and further in view of Yae (U.S. PG Publication: 2025/0166599 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh teaches the method for a spoken dialog system utilizing multiple tenant services and corresponding submodules along with piecewise speech transcription as applied to Claim 1. While Di Fabbrizio further teaches determining a first text response for text-to-speech synthesis (determining “textual responses” for TTS into verbalized responses, Paragraph 0040), Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh fail to teach the segmentation of the text to be provided to multiple text-to-speech synthesizers as set forth in claim 4. Yae, however, discloses:
segmenting the first text response into a plurality of first text response segments (sequentially segmenting a text input, Paragraphs 0009, 0037 and 0040);
transmitting each respective first text response of the plurality of first text response segments to a different text-to-speech converter, wherein the different text-to-speech converters generate a plurality of first voice response prompts (sending text segments to different TTS engines to generate a spoken output, Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0048; Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 13); and
combining the plurality of first voice response prompts to generate the first voice response (merging of the sound segments to generate an output sound, Paragraph 0050).
Di Fabbrizio, Ganong, Singh, and Yae are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in interactive speech processing services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to utilize the multiple text-to-speech synthesizer taught by Yae for the generation of voice responses in the dialog system of Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh to provide a predictable result of implementing text-to-speech synthesis for different types of text inputs for an improved virtual assistant (Yae, Paragraphs 0005-0007).
With respect to Claim 6, Yae further discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein transmitting each of the plurality of first text response segments to the different text-to-speech converters, to generate the plurality of first voice response prompts further comprises: transmitting output parameters along with the plurality of first text response segments, wherein the output parameters enable continuity between the plurality of first voice response prompts (sent information to be used in the merging process once speech is generated to produce a speech sequence including chronological ordering, Paragraph 0050).
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to Claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale with reference to the fact that multiple system turns are part of an ongoing dialog with a user in Di Fabbrizio as noted in the claim 1 rejection.
With respect to Claim 13, Ganong and Yae further disclose:
The method of claim 12, wherein a number of different text-to-speech converters used in generating the second voice response differs from a number of different text-to-speech converters used in generating the first voice response (the number of synthesizers is selected based upon the number of different content types, Paragraph 0045; the concept of selecting a number of recognizers in the opposite operation (i.e., speech-to-text) is also taught by Ganong at Paragraphs 0091-0092 where a number of services used is based upon the number of different PII and/or PHI instances; thus, combining concepts results (types of information in Yae leading to different synthesizers and types of information related to PII/PHI in Ganong) results in the invention set forth in claim 13 when taken in combination with Di Fabbrizio).
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to Claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to Claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Fabbrizio, et al. in view of Ganong, III et al. in view of Singh, et al. in view of Yae and further in view of Harb, et al. (U.S. Patent: 8,571,863).
With respect Claim 7, Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh and further in view of Yae teaches the method for a spoken dialog system utilizing multiple tenant services and corresponding submodules along with piecewise speech synthesis for non-overlapping text segments as applied to Claim 4. Although Di Fabbrizio also discloses that that a "tenant profile" makes associations with particular TTS synthesis engines (Paragraph 0077), Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh and further in view of Yae does not identify whether a text-to-speech converter is comprised at a target service and in response transmitting the text to the different converter for synthesis. Harb, however, discloses checking whether a specific text-to-speech capable component comprising a device is connected and if not uploading text to another converter for synthesis (Col. 4, Line 58- Col. 5, Line 4).
Di Fabbrizio, Ganong, Singh, Yae, and Harb are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in interactive speech processing services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to utilize the synthesizer checking procedure taught by Harb in the dialog system taught by Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh and further in view of Yae to provide a predictable result of better preventing service errors or latency when a dedicated synthesizer is not connected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Fabbrizio, et al. in view of Ganong, III et al. in view of Singh, et al. and further in view of Segalis, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2017/0359464 A1).
With respect to Claim 11, Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh teaches the method for a spoken dialog system utilizing multiple tenant services and corresponding submodules along with piecewise speech transcription based upon provided segmentation information as applied to Claim 10. Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh do not teach that such segmentation is provided via voice activity or pause detection as recited in claim 11. Segalis, however, teaches speech endpointing that provides later utilized metadata in the form of endpoints of speech segments for speech-to-text transcription ("converts the audio data parsed by the speech endpoint detector") based upon voice activity/pause (i.e., silence) detection (Paragraph 0067-0071).
Di Fabbrizio, Ganong, Singh, and Segalis are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in interactive speech processing services. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to utilize the speech endpointing for speech-to-text conversion taught by Segalis as an initial segmentation in the segmentation taught by Di Fabbrizio in view of Ganong in view of Singh to provide a predictable result in the form of separating distinct statements in an utterance sequence to further identify confidential and non-confidential portions.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kotzin (U.S. Patent: 7,197,463)- teaches the use of a secure server for voice assistance in a manner where sensitive information is not available to assistant agents when their services are utilized (Col. 4, Lines 20-35). See also the discussion at Col. 8, Line 62- Col. 9, Line 25) of parsing a voice input into different non-overlapping segments, sending each segment to a separate agent and then using the server to assimilate the results to execute the command.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights