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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,410,655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application define an invention that is merely an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the patent for the following reasons.
Comparing the subject matters of the two documents, it is clear that all the elements of the application claims are to be found in the patent claims. The difference is that claims 1 and 15 of the patent comprise the additional limitation “wherein the configuring includes an act of accepting customization of defined routines that change execution parameters for execution at respective ones of the plurality of voice devices”, therefore they represent a species of the generic invention. Since it has been held that generic invention is anticipated by the species, claim 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of the patent.
In that regard as shown in the table below, claim 1 of the invention is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claims 2-20 are, respectively, anticipated by claims 2-20 of the patent.
18650900
11410655
1. A voice assistance system for managing voice routine execution in a user environment, the system comprising: at least one processor operatively connected to a memory; at least one server system; a plurality of voice devices, the plurality of voice devices comprising at least a speaker for communicating voice commands and a microphone for receiving voice input, wherein the plurality of voice devices are configured to enable assistance actions for respective users of the voice devices based on execution of voice routines; wherein the at least one processor configured to: define associations between a plurality of users and at least some the plurality of voice devices, wherein the plurality of users are associated with an entity providing membership for the plurality of users; generate a candidate installation configuration defining a plurality of voice routines linked to the associated entity, wherein the plurality of voice routines includes default routines, entity specific routines, and user-based routines, wherein the voice routines include at least a plurality of proactive routines configured to be initiated by the system for execution at a remote voice device; deploy a final installation configuration on a plurality of voice devices including at least a plurality of voice routines, based on selection in a user interface, wherein selection in the user interface includes selection options for selection of individual routines and options for selection of grouped routines, wherein the system is further configured to establish a default schedule for execution of the selected routines responsive to selection in the user interface or further configured to accept specification of a timing for the selected routines in the user interface; and configure the plurality of devices to execute any selected voice routine in the final installation configuration.
1. A voice assistance system for managing voice routine execution in a user environment, the system comprising: at least one processor operatively connected to a memory; at least one server system; a plurality of voice devices, the plurality of voice devices comprising at least a speaker for communicating voice commands and a microphone for receiving voice input, wherein the plurality of voice devices are configured to enable assistance actions for respective users of the voice devices based on execution of voice routines; wherein the at least one processor configured to: define associations between a plurality of users and at least some the plurality of voice devices, wherein the plurality of users are associated with an entity providing membership for the plurality of users; configure a plurality of voice routines linked to the associated entity, wherein the plurality of voice routines includes default routines, entity specific routines, and user-based routines, wherein the voice routines include at least a plurality of proactive routines configured to be initiated by the system for execution at a remote voice device; configure a plurality of voice devices with at least a plurality of routines based on selection in a user interface, wherein selection in the user interface includes selection options for selection of individual routines and options for selection of grouped routines, wherein the system is further configured to establish a default schedule for execution of the selected routines responsive to selection in the user interface or further configure to accept specification of a timing for the selected routines in the user interface; and configure the plurality of devices to execute any selection routine based on an associated prioritization; and accept customization of defined routines that change execution parameters for execution at respective ones of the plurality of voice devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657