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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 22, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show word label descriptions beside numbers on FIGs. 3-4, 6-8 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2014/0309996 A1) in view of Dyer (US 4,433,387 A).
As to claim 2, Zhang discloses a method [Paragraph 0003] comprising:
determining, using one or more processors of an electronic device [100 on FIG.1], that audio data generated using one or more microphones [Incoming communication 140 140 on FIG. 1] of the electronic device represents speech corresponding to a predefined wake command [“The wake-up module determines whether a voice signal includes a wake-up command.” Paragraph 0045];
determining, using the one or more processors of the electronic device, that audio data generated using the one or more microphones represents speech corresponding to a first operational request [“The mobile terminal turns on the voice receiving module (Microphone) and determines that the voice signal includes an executing request.” Paragraph 0047], and based on the determining that audio data generated using the one or more microphones represents speech corresponding to a first operational request, causing one or more speakers [Voice outputting module 110 on FIG. 1] of the electronic device to output sound [“If the voice recognition result includes the executing request, the mobile executes the responding operation using the voice output module.” Paragraph 0047].
Zhang fails to disclose causing a lighting element to illuminate.
However, Dyer teaches based on the determining that audio data generated using the one or more microphones represents speech corresponding to a predefined wake command, causing a lighting element of the electronic device to illuminate in a predefined manner [“A light emitted diode associated with output port is illuminated upon the receipt of the earlier wakeup command.” Column 17, lines 48-54].
Zhang and Dyer are analogous because they are all directed to voice control management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Zhang reference with the teaching of Dyer, so that the mobile device would include the lighting elements in the electronic device of Zhang, would have been combined into an illuminate device, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the LED indicating a proper latching of memory module, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 3, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the electronic device comprises a housing [100 on FIG. 1], and wherein the one or more microphones, the one or more speakers, and the one or more processors are all disposed at least partially within the housing [FIG. 1 and Paragraph 0038].
As to claim 4, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the causing of the one or more speakers to output sound comprises causing the one or more speakers to output an audible statement [“The voice output module is for example, a speaker outputting the voice notification.” Paragraph 0022].
As to claim 5, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining that audio data represents speech corresponding to a first operational request comprises performing natural language understanding (NLU) techniques [“The language recognition module performs natural language understanding on the semantic segments. “ Paragraph 0035].
As to claim 6, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the method comprises: determining response data representing a response to the first operational request [“The voice recognition result includes the executing request, the mobile terminal apparatus executes the responding operation.” Paragraph 0047]; and
generating response audio data using the response data and a text to speech technique [“The wake up module determine that the received voice signal includes non-voice signal going to a speech recognition system such as speech to text.” Paragraphs 0046-0047];
wherein the causing of the one or more speakers of the electronic device to output sound is based on the response audio data [“The voice output module is for example, a speaker outputting the voice notification.” Paragraph 0022].
As to claim 7, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining that audio data represents speech corresponding to a first operational request comprises determining that audio data represents speech corresponding to a request for content [“The voice recognition result includes the executing request, the mobile terminal apparatus executes the responding operation.” Paragraph 0047].
As to claim 8, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to disclose a lighting element to illuminate.
However, Dyer teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a light pipe, and wherein causing a lighting element of the electronic device to illuminate in a predefined manner comprises causing light to transmit through the light pipe [“A light emitted diode associated with output port is illuminated upon the receipt of the earlier wakeup command.” Column 17, lines 48-54].
Zhang and Dyer are analogous because they are all directed to voice control management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Zhang reference with the teaching of Dyer, so that the mobile device would include the lighting elements in the electronic device of Zhang, would have been combined into an illuminate device, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the LED indicating a proper latching of memory module, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 9, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to disclose a light emitting diode.
However, Dyer teaches wherein the lighting element comprises a light emitting diode [“A light emitted diode associated with output port is illuminated upon the receipt of the earlier wakeup command.” Column 17, lines 48-54].
Zhang and Dyer are analogous because they are all directed to voice control management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Zhang reference with the teaching of Dyer, so that the mobile device would include the lighting elements in the electronic device of Zhang, would have been combined into an illuminate device, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the LED indicating a proper latching of memory module, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 10, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the method comprises: receiving, at the electronic device using a wireless interface, first data sent from an application loaded on a user device [“The auxiliary control send a wireless signal to the mobile terminal apparatus.” Paragraph 0071].
As to claim 11, Zhang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the method comprises: based on the first data, causing the one or more speakers of the electronic device to output sound [“The voice output module is for example, a speaker outputting the voice notification.” Paragraph 0022].
As to claim 12, discloses Zhang a method [Paragraph 003comprising: see claim 2’s rejection above for the rest of claim 12’s limitations.
As to claim 13, see claim 4’s rejection above.
As to claim 14, see claim 3’s rejection above.
As to claim 15, see claim 6’s rejection above.
As to claim 16, see claim 8’s rejection above.
As to claim 17, see claim 9’s rejection above.
As to claim 18, see claim 10’s rejection above.
As to claim 19, see claim 11’s rejection above.
As to claim 20, see claim 10’s rejection above.
As to claim 21, see claim 10’s rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
For example: Bishop et al. (US 2014/0278419 A1) discloses a voice command definition file (VCDF) declaratively defines voice commands for an application. For example, the VCDF may include definitions for: voice commands; one or more phrases/utterances that may be said to execute each of the commands; a navigation location to navigate to within the application (e.g. a page); phrase lists containing items that may be used as a parameter in a voice command; examples; feedback; and the like. A user may say a single utterance to launch the application, navigate to the associated location of the command and execute the command. The VCDF may define multiple ways to listen for a particular command. The VCDF may be edited/defined by a user and may include a user friendly name for an application. A speech engine loads the VCDF for use such that it may recognize the commands associated with an application. The definitions may be updated during runtime.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/GERALD GAUTHIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
November 24, 2025
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692