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 voluminous Information Disclosure Statements filed 07/01/2024 and 7/9/2024, have been accepted in this application and considered to the extent the Office's internal time constraints permit. Applicant is reminded that "Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability." See MPEP 609.04(a). In this case, applicant has submitted references numbering in the thousands, and it appears many of them are only tangentially relevant to the claimed invention. Although not required to do so, Applicant is requested to point out the most relevant documents and an explanation of relevance in order to help make the prosecution record clear.
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 1-5, 11 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,303,715. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of the patented claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15 of the patent issued to the same Applicant.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 are to be found in patented claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15 (as the application claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 fully encompasses patented claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15). The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 is anticipated by claims 16, 30-31, 35, 38, 41-42, 1 and 15 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from of the patented claims.
Application No: 18/669458
Patent No: 10,303,715
1. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving a natural-language speech input; identifying, by a digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input; providing, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task; and while providing the speech output indicative of the verbal response: providing, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response.
16. An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving a speech input indicative of a request for media; in response to receiving the speech input, providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a first media item; determining, by the digital assistant, whether a number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request for media satisfies a threshold; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses does not satisfy the threshold: providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a second media item different from the first media item; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses satisfies the threshold: foregoing providing the audio output indicative of the suggestion of the second media item; and providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a request for user input.
2. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein identifying a task based on the speech input comprises: obtaining a text string based on the natural-language speech input; interpreting the text string to obtain a representation of user intent; and determining the task based on the representation of user intent.
30. The electronic device of claim 16, the one or more programs further including instructions for: obtaining, based on the speech input indicative of the request for media, a text string; determining, based on the obtained text string, a representation of user intent; and obtaining, based on the representation of user intent, information related to one or more media items, wherein the one or more media items includes the first media item and the second media item.
3. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the natural-language speech input is indicative of a request for one or more media items; and wherein identifying the task based on the natural-language speech input comprises identifying a task of providing one or more media items.
31. The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the speech input indicative of the request for media is a first speech input, wherein determining whether the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request for media satisfies the threshold comprises: after providing the audio output indicative of the suggestion of the first media item, receiving a second speech input; determining whether the second speech input is indicative of a non-affirmative response corresponding to the request for media; in accordance with a determination that the second speech input is indicative of a non-affirmative response, updating the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request; in accordance with a determination that the second speech input is not indicative of a non-affirmative response, foregoing updating the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request.
4. The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the media item is a first media item, and wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: identifying, based on the speech input, a second media item; obtaining information corresponding to the second media item.
35. The electronic device of claim 34, the one or more programs further including instructions for: after providing the audio output indicative of the request for user input, receiving a speech input indicative of the user selection; interpreting, based on context information, the speech input indicative of the user selection.
5. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein providing a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task comprises: providing a verbal description of the second media item.
38. The electronic device of claim 37, the one or more programs further including instructions for: after providing the audio output indicative of the request for user input, receiving a speech input indicative of the one or more parameters for the request for media.
6. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the speech output indicative of a verbal response is provided in: a voice of the digital assistant, a voice associated with the second media item, or a combination thereof.
7. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the first media item corresponds to a portion of the second media item.
8. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while providing playback of the first media item: receiving a second natural-language speech input; in response to receiving the second natural-language speech input, providing playback of the second media item.
9. The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the playback of the second media item is provided at a different volume from the playback of the first media item.
10. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task is a first speech output, and wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while providing the playback of the second media item, providing a second speech output.
11. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the second media item comprises: a song, an audio book, a podcast, a station, a playlist, or a combination thereof.
41. The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the second media item is a song, an audio book, a podcast, a station, a playlist, or any combination thereof.
12. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: performing the task to obtain one or more results.
13. The electronic device of claim 12, wherein providing a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task comprises: providing a speech output indicative of a verbal description of a result of the one or more results, and wherein providing playback of the media item corresponding to the verbal response comprises: providing playback of a sound effect corresponding to the result.
14. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the speech output is provided at a first volume, and wherein the playback of a media item is provided at a second volume different from the first volume.
15. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a computer, a set-top box, a speaker, a smart watch, a phone, or a combination thereof.
42. The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the electronic device is a computer, a set-top box, a speaker, a smart watch, a phone, or a combination thereof.
16. A method for operating a digital assistant, comprising: at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory: receiving a natural-language speech input; identifying, by the digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input; providing, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task; and while providing the speech output indicative of the verbal response: providing, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response.
1. A method for operating a digital assistant, comprising: at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory: receiving a speech input indicative of a request for media; in response to receiving the speech input, providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a first media item; determining, by the digital assistant, whether a number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request for media satisfies a threshold; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses does not satisfy the threshold: providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a second media item different from the first media item; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses satisfies the threshold: foregoing providing the audio output indicative of the suggestion of the second media item; and providing, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a request for user input.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: receive a natural-language speech input; identify, by a digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input; provide, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task; and while providing the speech output indicative of the verbal response: provide, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response.
15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: receive a speech input indicative of a request for media; in response to receiving the speech input, provide, by a digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a first media item; determine, by the digital assistant, whether a number of consecutive non-affirmative responses corresponding to the request for media satisfies a threshold; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses does not satisfy the threshold: provide, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a suggestion of a second media item different from the first media item; in accordance with a determination that the number of consecutive non-affirmative responses satisfies the threshold: forego providing the audio output indicative of the suggestion of the second media item; and provide, by the digital assistant, an audio output indicative of a request for user input.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a “system”, which is a machine and thus falls within a statutory category under the most recent guidelines of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites instructions for “receive a natural-language speech input”, “identify, by a digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input”, “provide, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task”, and “while providing the speech output indicative of a verbal response: provide, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response”. These limitations collectively recite organizing and creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim is implemented on a “” electronic device with one or more processors and memory”. These are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and executing instructions, receiving requests, and sending content.
The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality (e.g., a particular translation algorithm, model architecture, data structure, memory organization, caching mechanism, latency-reduction technique, or network protocol that improves the operation of the computer or network). Nor does it effect a transformation of a physical article or use the abstract idea in any other manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements are the generic “one or more processors,” and “memory” performing their conventional functions. Implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components does not amount to significantly more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24).
The ordered combination of limitations mirrors the abstract idea itself performed using routine computer operations. There is no recited unconventional hardware, no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no nonconventional arrangement of known components etc.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Therefore , claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Independent claim 16 recite(s) the steps of “receive a natural-language speech input”, “identify, by a digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input”, “provide, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task”, and “while providing the speech output indicative of a verbal response: provide, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response”. These limitations collectively recite organizing and creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim is implemented on a “” electronic device with one or more processors and memory”. These are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and executing instructions, receiving requests, and sending content.
The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality (e.g., a particular translation algorithm, model architecture, data structure, memory organization, caching mechanism, latency-reduction technique, or network protocol that improves the operation of the computer or network). Nor does it effect a transformation of a physical article or use the abstract idea in any other manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Accordingly, claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing device the determining and data gathering steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The current specification at paragraph 0056, clearly specifies that “… User device 104 can be any suitable electronic device. In some examples, user device is a portable multifunctional device (e.g., device 200, described below with reference to FIG. 2A), a multifunctional device (e.g., device 400, described below with reference to FIG. 4), or a personal electronic device (e.g., device 600, described below with reference to FIGS. 6A-6B.) A portable multifunctional device is, for example, a mobile telephone that also contains other functions, such as PDA and/or music player functions. Specific examples of portable multifunction devices include the iPhone®, iPod Touch®, and iPad® devices from Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California. Other examples of portable multifunction devices include, without limitation, laptop or tablet computers. Further, in some examples, user device 104 is a non-portable multifunctional device. In particular, user device 104 is a desktop computer, a game console, a television, or a television set-top box. In some examples, user device 104 includes a touch-sensitive surface (e.g., touch screen displays and/or touchpads). Further, user device 104 optionally includes one or more other physical user-interface devices, such as a physical keyboard, a mouse, and/or a joystick. Various examples of electronic devices, such as multifunctional devices, are described below in greater detail.” The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the selecting and generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing device cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 16 as drafted is not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Independent claim 16 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-15 are dependent claims and do not contain subject matter that can be overcome the rejection of independent claim 15.
Claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to implement the method of claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale.
All dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because any additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons already recited for the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Orr et al., (2016/0378747 A1).
As per claims 1, 16 and 17, Orr et al., teach an electronic device/method/non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to implement the method, comprising: one or more processors (0007); a memory (0007); and one or more programs (0009), wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (0009):
receiving a natural-language speech input (0012, 0215 – natural language processing module for processing speech input);
identifying, by a digital assistant, a task based on the natural-language speech input (0041);
providing, by the digital assistant, a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task (0086, 0225); and
while providing the speech output indicative of a verbal response: providing, by the digital assistant, playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response (0258, 0280).
As per claim 2, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein identifying a task based on the speech input comprises: obtaining a text string based on the natural-language speech input (0219); interpreting the text string to obtain a representation of user intent (0217); and determining the task based on the representation of user intent (0217, 0228-0231).
As per claim 3, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the natural-language speech input is indicative of a request for one or more media items; and wherein identifying the task based on the natural-language speech input comprises identifying a task of providing one or more media items (0261).
As per claim 4, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the media item is a first media item, and wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: identifying, based on the speech input, a second media item (0295 - 0296); obtaining information corresponding to the second media item (0303).
As per claim 5, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein providing a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task comprises: providing a verbal description of the second media item (0295-0296, 0303).
As per claim 6, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the speech output indicative of a verbal response is provided in: a voice of the digital assistant, a voice associated with the second media item, or a combination thereof (0225).
As per claim 7, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the first media item corresponds to a portion of the second media item (0261).
As per claim 8, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while providing playback of the first media item: receiving a second natural-language speech input; in response to receiving the second natural-language speech input, providing playback of the second media item (0258, 0280).
As per claim 9, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the playback of the second media item is provided at a different volume from the playback of the first media item (0060, 0160, 0251).
As per claim 10, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task is a first speech output, and wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while providing the playback of the second media item, providing a second speech output(0269, -user confirming user choice and refining on the first request(intent)).
As per claim 11, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the second media item comprises: a song, an audio book, a podcast, a station, a playlist, or a combination thereof (0252, 0255 - 256).
As per claim 12, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: performing the task to obtain one or more results (0268, 0290, 0295 - 0296).
As per claim 13, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 12, wherein providing a speech output indicative of a verbal response associated with the identified task comprises: providing a speech output indicative of a verbal description of a result of the one or more results, and wherein providing playback of a media item corresponding to the verbal response comprises: providing playback of a sound effect corresponding to the result (0086, 0241).
As per claim 14, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the speech output is provided at a first volume, and wherein the playback of a media item is provided at a second volume different from the first volume (0060, 0160, 0251).
As per claim 15, Orr teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a computer, a set-top box, a speaker, a smart watch, a phone, or a combination thereof (0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
The following prior art of reference maybe used alone or in combination to apply with respect to Applicant claimed invention.
Badasker (US 2014/0081633 A1) teaches methods and systems for searching for media items using a voice-based digital assistant. Natural language text strings corresponding to search queries are provided. The search queries include query terms. The text strings may correspond to speech inputs input by a user into an electronic device. At least one information source is searched to identify at least one parameter associated with at least one of the query terms. The parameters include at least one of a time parameter, a date parameter, or a geo-code parameter. The parameters are compared to tags of media items to identify matches. In some implementations, media items whose tags match the parameter are presented to the user.
Krishnamoorthy et al., (US 2016/0063998 A1) teach systems and processes for processing speech in a digital assistant. In one example process, a first speech input can be received from a user. The first speech input can be processed using a first automatic speech recognition system to produce a first recognition result. An input indicative of a potential error in the first recognition result can be received. The input can be used to improve the first recognition result. For example, the input can include a second speech input that is a repetition of the first speech input. The second speech input can be processed using a second automatic speech recognition system to produce a second recognition result.
Kudurshian et al., (US 2017/0358305 A1) teach systems and processes for operating a digital assistant. In one example, a method includes receiving a first speech input from a user. The method further includes identifying context information and determining a user intent based on the first speech input and the context information. The method further includes determining whether the user intent is to perform a task using a searching process or an object managing process. The searching process is configured to search data, and the object managing process is configured to manage objects. The method further includes, in accordance with a determination the user intent is to perform the task using the searching process, performing the task using the searching process; and in accordance with the determination that the user intent is to perform the task using the object managing process, performing the task using the object managing process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY B CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7601. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Monday thru Thursday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/VIJAY B CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658