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 2-3, 6-12 and 14-31 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amended independent claims (Claims 1, 14 and 23) and the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 2-3, 16, 20 and 23 under 35 USC § 102, and Claims 5-12, 17-20, 21-22 and 24-31 under 35 USC § 103, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1).
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.
Claims 2-6, 16, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US Patent 10,133,612 B2) in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wood teaches a method comprising managing an interaction between a user of an interface and a plurality of voice assistants associated with the interface (see Fig.1 (102,104,107,108) and Col.5, Line 21-39, arbitration for multiple voice assistants), said interaction having been initiated by said user and comprising at least a first voice command (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.5, Line 48-50, ordering pizza), wherein managing said interaction comprises:
receiving said first voice command of said interaction (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.5, Line 48-50, ordering pizza); a voice command determining a serving domain and an intent of said first voice command (see Fig.1 (106), Col.5, Line 63-67 and Col.7, Line 13-17);
based on said serving domain and said intent, determining that a voice assistant from the plurality of voice assistants has functionality for servicing the first command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-23, arbitrations for the voice assistants and selection of a voice assistant);
providing a representation of the first voice command to the voice assistant for servicing (see Fig.1 (6,7). Fig.2 (234), Col.6, Line 14-23 and Col.7, Line 2-13, intent notification sent to the selected voice assistant for processing request);
and monitoring an interaction between the voice assistant and the user during servicing of the first command (see Fig.1 (8,9,10,11), Fig,2 (260), Fig.4 (474), Col.6, Line 14-37 and Col.8, Line 2-13, further interactions to process order and monitoring for end of processing with specialized voice assistant and return of session control to the arbitration voice assistant).
Wood fails to teach processing the interaction between the first voice assistant and the user according to a user interaction model to determine when the first voice assistant has finished servicing the first voice command.
Campbell, however, teaches processing an interaction between a user and a voice assistant according to an audio processing model to detect an end of the user’s voice request (see Fig.1 (124), Col.10, Line 2-11 and Col.10, Line49-54).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Wood’s method the step for processing the interaction between the first voice assistant and the user according to a user interaction model to determine when the first voice assistant has finished servicing the first voice command. The motivation would be to detect the end of the interaction and processing of a request between the user and a particular voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 3, Wood further teaches wherein the interaction between the voice assistant and the user is monitored by the interface (see Fig.1 (100,102,106) and Col.6, Line 24-37).
Regarding Claim 4, Wood further teaches wherein monitoring the interaction includes determining when the voice assistant has finished servicing the first command (see Fig.1 (10,11) and Col.6, Line 32-37).
Regarding Claim 5, Wood teaches monitoring and processing the interaction between the voice assistant and the user (see Fig.1 (8,9,10,11) and Col.6, Line 14-37, further interactions to process order), but fails to teach using a user interaction model.
Campbell, however, teaches utilizing an audio processing model for interactions between a user and a virtual assistant (see Fig.1 (124), Col.10, Line 2-11 and Col.10, Line 49-54, monitoring interaction and detecting the end of a user’s request).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Wood’s method the step for utilizing a user interaction model for monitoring and processing the user interaction between the voice assistant and a user. The motivation would be to use a language model to interact with a particular user for processing the user’s request.
Regarding Claim 6, Wood teaches wherein the determining that the voice assistant has the functionality for servicing the command includes processing the voice command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-37), but fails to teach processing voice command according to a user interaction model.
Campbell, however, teaches utilizing an audio processing model for interactions between a user and a virtual assistant (see Fig.1 (124), Col.10, Line 2-11 and Col.10, Line 49-54, monitoring interaction and detecting the end of a user’s request).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Wood’s method the step for utilizing a user interaction model for processing voice command according to a user interaction model. The motivation would be to use a language model for processing a particular user’s request.
Regarding Claim 16, Wood further teaches wherein the determination of the voice assistant for servicing the command is based at least in part on a context in which the command is issued (see Fig.1 (104,106), Col.5, Line 63-67 and Col.7, Line 13-17).
Regarding Claim 20, Wood further teaches wherein determining the voice assistant for servicing the command includes identifying a voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants that is most capable of servicing the command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-23).
Regarding Claim 23, Wood teaches a system for managing interactions between users of an interface and a plurality of voice assistants associated with the interface (see Fig.1, Fig.5 and Col.5, Line 21-39), the system comprising:
an input that comprises an interaction with a user of the interface, the interaction comprising a first voice command (see Fig.1 (100,102,104) and Col.5, Line 48-50, ordering pizza);
an arbitration module for determining, based on a serving domain and an intent of said first voice command (see Fig.1 (106,114), Fig.5 (580c), Col.5, Line 63-67 and Col.7, Line 13-17), a voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants for servicing the first voice command, wherein the voice assistant has functionality for servicing the first command (see Fig.1 (114) and Col.6, Line 14-23);
an output for providing a representation of the first voice command to the voice assistant for servicing (see Fig.1 (6,7), Fig.2 (234), Col.6, Line 14-23 and Col.7, Line 2-13, intent notification sent to a selected voice assistant for processing the request);
and a monitoring module for monitoring the interaction between the voice assistant and the user during servicing of the first command (see Fig.1 (8,9,10,11), Fig,2 (260), Fig.4 (474), Col.6, Line 14-37 and Col.8, Line 2-13, further interactions to process order and monitoring for end of processing with specialized voice assistant and return of session control to the arbitration voice assistant).
Wood fails to teach processing the interaction between the first voice assistant and the user according to a user interaction model to determine when the first voice assistant has finished servicing the first voice command.
Campbell, however, teaches processing an interaction between a user and a voice assistant according to an audio processing model to detect an end of the user’s voice request (see Fig.1 (124), Col.10, Line 2-11 and Col.10, Line49-54).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Wood’s system a monitoring module configured to process the interaction between the first voice assistant and the user according to a user interaction model to determine when the first voice assistant has finished servicing the first voice command. The motivation would be to detect the end of the interaction and processing of a request between the user and a particular voice assistant.
Claims 7-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US Patent 10,133,612 B2) in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1), and in further view of Nadkar et al. (US Patent 11,164,570 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is native to the interface and at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is non-native to the interface.
Nadkar, however, teaches a network of voice assistants wherein one voice assistant is native to an interface and at least one voice assistant is non-native to the interface (see Fig.1 (102,104,112,114) and Col.3, Line 60 — Col.4, Line 1).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for utilizing a network of at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is native to the interface and at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is non-native to the interface. The motivation would be to configure a network of devices native to different voice assistant applications.
Regarding Claim 8, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the interface is part of a platform executing in a vehicle.
Nadkar, however, teaches a voice assistant interface that is part of a platform executing in a vehicle (see Fig.1 (102,104) and Col.3, Line 60 – Col.4, Line 1).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for utilizing a voice assistant interface that is part of a platform executing in a vehicle. The motivation would be to enable a user to interact with applications native to a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the plurality of voice assistants includes a first voice assistant native to the vehicle and one or more other voice assistants associated with devices other than the vehicle.
Nadkar, however, teaches a network of voice assistants wherein one voice assistant is native to a vehicle and at least one voice assistant is non-native to the vehicle (see Fig.1(102,104,112,114) and Col.3, Line 60 — Col.4, Line 1).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for utilizing a network of at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is native to the vehicle and at least one voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants is non-native to the vehicle. The motivation would be to configure a network of devices native to different voice assistant applications.
Regarding Claim 10, Wood teaches wherein a voice assistant is associated with a smart phone (see Fig.1 (102,104) and Col.5, Line 48-50), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach a voice assistant that is native to a vehicle.
Nadkar, however, teaches a network of voice assistants including a voice assistant that is native to a vehicle (see Fig.1(102,104,112,114) and Col.3, Line 60 — Col.4, Line 1).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for utilizing a network of at least one voice assistant that is native to a vehicle. The motivation would be to enable a user to interact with applications native to a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 12, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 15, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the plurality of voice assistants includes a voice assistant that is configured to effect changes to a configuration of a vehicle.
Nadkar, however, teaches a first voice assistant that is configured to effect changes to a configuration of the vehicle (see Fig.1 (102,104), Col.3, Line 25-31 and Col.3, Line 60 — Col.4, Line 1, temperature control).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for utilizing a network of at least one voice assistant that is configured to effect changes to a configuration of the vehicle. The motivation would be to enable a user to set or change the settings for a vehicle via a voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 17, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the determination of the voice assistant is based on at least one of: time of the day, current weather, calendar information and activity of the user at the time the user initiated the interaction.
Nadkar, however, teaches determining a voice assistant based on the current activity of the user (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.8, Line 21-29).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for determining a voice assistant to select based on the current activity of the user. The motivation would be select a voice assistant based on context information associated with the user.
Regarding Claim 18, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the voice command is one of a plurality of voice commands that are provided to different voice assistants.
Nadkar, however, teaches providing voice commands to different voice assistants to complete different tasks (see Fig.4 (104) and Col.7, Line 21-40).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for providing voice commands different voice assistants. The motivation would be to utilize multiple voice assistants to complete different types of tasks requested by the user.
Regarding Claim 19, Wood teaches determining when the voice assistant has finished servicing the command (see Fig.1 (10,11) and Col.6, Line 32-37), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach wherein upon determining the voice assistant has finished servicing the command, servicing a second command.
Nadkar, however, teaches providing additional voice commands to a voice assistant after servicing the first voice command (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.7, Line 1-11).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for servicing a second voice command upon determining that the voice assistant has completed servicing the first voice command. The motivation would be to complete a second task or request from the user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US Patent 10,133,612 B2) in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1), and in further view of Ni et al. (US Patent 11,579,749 B2).
Regarding Claim 21, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the determination of the voice assistant for service of the command is based on a pattern of the user’s prior behavior.
Ni, however, teaches executing a voice command on a particular connected device based on user profile that includes data on historical user interactions with a voice assistant (see Fig.1 (110,128) and Col.10, Line 9-15).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for determining a voice assistant for service of the command is based on a pattern of the user’s prior behavior. The motivation would be to execute a voice command on a particular voice assistant based on the user preference information from a user profile.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US Patent 10,133,612 B2) in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1), and in further view of White et al. (US Patent 11, 631,017 B2).
Regarding Claim 22, Wood and Campbell teach the method of Claim 2 but fail to teach wherein determining the voice assistant for servicing the command includes querying the user to disambiguate between two or more voice assistants.
White, however, teaches querying a user to determine a preferred digital assistant among a plurality of digital assistants (see Fig.2 208) and Col.9, Line 42-49).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for determining the voice assistant for servicing the command based on querying the user to disambiguate between two or more voice assistants. The motivation would be to enable a user to make a choice for a preferred voice assistant among a plurality of available voice assistants.
Claims 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US Patent 10,133,612 B2) in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent 9,940,930 B1), and in further view of Pasko et al. (US Patent 11,132,509 B1).
Regarding Claim 24, Wood teaches wherein the arbitrator performs the determining of the serving domain and of the intent (see Fig.1 (106), Col.5, Line 63-67 and Col.7, Line 13-17), and the determining that the first voice assistant has functionality for servicing the first voice command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-23, arbitrations for the voice assistants and selection of a voice assistant), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach providing the first voice command concurrently to the first voice assistant and to an arbitrator.
Pasko, however, teaches routing the input audio data concurrently to the local speech processing component of a first device and to a remote speech processing system to determine whether to process a user request locally at the first device or at the remote speech processing location (see Fig.1 (102,114,120,136) and Col.9, Line 40-62, routing and processing the audio data in parallel to the remote speech processing system and the local speech processing component).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for providing the first voice command concurrently to the first voice assistant and to an arbitrator. The motivation would be to perform parallel speech recognition processing at a first voice assistant (arbitration voice assistant) and at least one specialized voice assistant in order to determine whether a user’s request should be processed locally at the first voice assistant or at a specialized voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 25, Wood further teaches wherein the arbitrator further informs the first voice assistant to service the first voice command (see Fig.1 (6,7). Fig.2 (234), Col.6, Line 14-23 and Col.7, Line 2-13, intent notification sent to the selected voice assistant for processing request).
Regarding Claim 26, Wood further teaches wherein the arbitrator further performs the monitoring of the interaction between the first voice assistant and the user during servicing of the first command (see Fig.1 (8,9,10,11), Fig,2 (260), Fig.4 (474), Col.6, Line 14-37 and Col.8, Line 2-13, further interactions to process order and monitoring for end of processing with specialized voice assistant and return of session control to the arbitration voice assistant).
Regarding Claim 27, Wood teaches wherein the arbitrator receiving a voice command (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.5, Line 48-50, ordering pizza), and determining that a voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants has functionality for service the command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-23, arbitrations for the voice assistants and selection of a voice assistant), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach wherein the arbitrator receiving a second voice command, and determining that a second voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants has functionality for service the second command.
Pasko, however, teaches a voice assistant manager configured to receive a second voice command and processing the second voice command at a second voice assistant (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.7, Line 21-40).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the steps for receiving a second voice command, and determining that a second voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants has functionality for service the second command. The motivation would be to process a second user’s request with a second specialized voice assistant that is different from the first specialized voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 28, Wood teaches passing an audio representation of a command to a voice assistant (see Fig.1 (6,7). Fig.2 (234), Col.6, Line 14-23 and Col.7, Line 2-13, intent notification sent to the selected voice assistant for processing request), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach passing an audio representation of a second command to a second voice assistant.
Pasko, however, teaches a voice assistant manager configured to receive a second voice command and processing the second voice command at a second voice assistant (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.7, Line 21-40).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for passing an audio representation of a second command to a second voice assistant. The motivation would be to process a second user’s request with a second specialized voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 29, Wood teaches determining that a voice assistant of the plurality of voice assistants has functionality for service the command (see Fig.1 (106,114) and Col.6, Line 14-23, arbitrations for the voice assistants and selection of a voice assistant), but Wood and Campbell fail to teach wherein the second voice command comprises a unique name and detecting the unique name in the second voice command.
Pasko, however, teaches a voice assistant manager configured to receive a second voice command including a unique name for a particular voice command and processing the second voice command at the voice assistant (see Fig.1 (104) and Col.7, Line 21-40, calling the Siri, Alexa or Google voice assistant for a particular request).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 2 the step for detecting the unique name in the second voice command. The motivation would be to process a second user’s request with a second specialized voice assistant.
Regarding Claim 30, Wood further teaches wherein the first voice assistant, the arbitrator, and interface are integrated into a platform, and the second voice assistant is external to said platform (see Fig.2 (206,210), Fig.5 (506,580c,510) and Col.8, Line 14-31).
Regarding Claim 31, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 28 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose or suggest the claimed limitation of (in combination with all other limitations in the claim) “providing the voice command concurrently to the first voice assistant command and to an arbitrator in the vehicle”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654