Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Binder’s external audio system is merely an accessory rather than the claimed second device. This argument is not persuasive. Binder expressly discloses the external audio system as a separate wired or wireless audio system connected to the electronic device, including through Bluetooth communications. Such an external audio system constitutes a second device residing in the same environment as the electronic device as the broad language of claim 1 requires.
Applicant further argues that Binder only discloses audio flowing from the external microphone to the electronic device. However, Applicant reads ¶[0138] too narrowly because it considers only the microphone aspect of Binder’s external audio system. Claim 1 merely requires a second device residing in the same environment as the first device. Binder explicitly describes the external audio system as including wired or wireless headsets, watches having speakers and/or microphones and vehicle audio systems having microphones and speakers, which are connected to the electronic device and used for hands-free telephone calls. Binder further discloses that upon detection of the trigger word the electronic device initializes an active audio link with the external audio system (see Binder ¶[0106], ¶[0138]-[0139])). In the disclosed telephony implementation, the electronic device receives speech audio associated with the telephone call and communicates that audio over the active audio link to the external audio system for reproduction by its speaker. Meaning, speech from a remote user is received by the electronic device through the telephone/network connection and is then sent by the electronic device over the active audio link to the headset, vehicle audio system or other external audio system. Therefore, the claimed second audio data does not need to originate from the microphone of the first device, it only needs to represent user speech, be received by the first device and subsequently be sent to the second device. Therefore, Binder is not limited to audio flowing from the external microphone toward the electronic device as argued by Applicant, but discloses use of the established audio link for the audio communication associated with the hands free telephone call.
Applicant further argues that Wernaers likewise involves only a device to accessory relationship. This argument is also unpersuasive. Wernaers discloses Bluetooth as a short range wireless networking standard designed for local area voice and data transfer and discloses a master and slave sharing communication channel. Wernaers explicitly discloses a Bluetooth headset connected to a cellular telephone and states that voice may be transmitted from the headset to the cell phone and inversely over the voice communication link (see Wernaers ¶[0008]). Therefore, Wernaers explicitly teaches transmission of voice audio between two separate devices over a local communication channel including transmission in both directions. Therefore, even assuming Binder were not alone considered to disclose every direction of audio transmission, Wernaers explicitly teaches identifying the predefined utterance and initializing the active audio link in response to it, while Wernaers teaches transmission of voice data between devices over such a local wireless link and control of that transmission.
Applicant argues that “context” must mean the linguistic context within the sentence in which the trigger appears. Claims 4 and 12, however, do not recite “linguistic context,” “sentence context,” or determining the position or semantic usage of the predefined utterance within the speech. Although the specification may describe such an embodiment, limitations from the specification are not imported into otherwise broader claim language. Binder explicitly identifies context associated with user speech. Binder explains that the digital assistant client gathers “context associated with a user input including environmental and device information (¶[0059]-[0065]). Binder further describes context information associated with the user request used in processing that request (see ¶[0076], [0069]). Binder also explicitly teaches determining device context for controlling operation of the voice trigger (¶[0128]). Therefore, Binder’s identification of contextual circumstances associated with the user’s speech and trigger invocation satisfies the broadly recited “identify a context in which the predefined utterance was used in the user speech.”
Applicant argues that Binder merely checks amplitude before identifying a trigger. However, Binder additionally discloses that trigger sound detect 406 compares a representation of the received sound input with one or more reference representations of the predefined trigger word and determines whether the representation matches with an acceptable confidence before initiating the speech based service (Binder ¶[0113]). Binder similarly explains that a sound input is determined to correspond to predetermined content when its representation matches a reference representation to a predetermined confidence (Binder ¶[0022] and ¶[0141]). Therefore, Binder analyzes the purported predefined utterance to determine whether it constitutes a valid trigger before initiating the responsive service/link functionality. Claim 19 does not require a separate validation operation occurring only after a distinct recognition operation, nor does it require that validity be determined from linguistic context.
Applicant argues that the combination does not disclose closing a communication channel between two independent devices. This is not persuasive because Applicant attempts to add a particular operation that isn’t specifically claimed. Wernaers explicitly defines a silence sample as “the absence of human speech” and a “non-speech sample” (Wernaers ¶[0057]). It detects such silence, including using a VAD (Wernaers ¶[0058]), determines whether consecutive silence samples have occurred (Wernaers ¶[0059) and then halts transmission based on that determination (Wernaers ¶[0053]-[0055]). Wernaers further states that, after transmission is stopped, “no more packets are sent from the transmitter to the receiver (Wernaers ¶[0066]). Therefore, Wernaers explicitly discloses determining that a portion of the audio data does not include user speech and in response stopping the communication of that audio data over the communication channel. Even assuming Applicant’s overly narrow interpretation of the claim language, Wernaers discloses that when the silence induced transmission halt persists, the receiver will close the Bluetooth audio link (Wernaers ¶[0067]). Therefore, Applicant’s narrower characterization of closing as closure of the underlying radio link is disclosed as a consequence of the silence based transmission control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder (US 2014/0222436).
Regarding Claim 1:
Binder discloses a first device (Binder: Fig. 1 104b) comprising:
one or more processors (Binder: Fig. 2 204); and
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions (Binder: Fig. 2 250 memory) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving first audio data representing user speech (Binder: ¶[0013] discloses receiving sound input corresponding to spoken utterance of a user. ¶[0149] discloses the electronic device receives a sound input, the sound input may be a spoken utterance);
performing speech recognition on the first audio data to identify a predefined utterance (Binder: ¶[0007], ¶[0113], discloses detecting trigger sounds by recognizing predefined trigger phrases through pattern matching representations);
establishing, at least partly in response to identifying the predefined utterance, a communication channel with a second device residing in a same environment as the first device (Binder: ¶[0138]-[0139] discloses after trigger detection the device initializes/maintains an active communication link with an external audio system located with the user (same environment));
receiving second audio data representing user speech (Binder: ¶[0053] discloses the device includes an audio subsystem supporting, among other things, telephony functions, ¶[0056] discloses the device includes a phone module facilitating phone related processes and functions and ¶[0138] discloses external audio systems such as wireless headsets and vehicle audio system are used to permit hands-free operation when users make a call. In this discloses implementation, the first electronic device receives speech audio associated with the telephone call, including speech originating from the remote participant); and
sending at least a portion of the second audio data to the second device (Binder: ¶[0106] discloses external audio system 416 includes both a microphone and a speaker¶[0138] teaches establishing the audio link to an external device and then using it for subsequent audio handling).
Regarding Claim 7:
Binder further discloses the first device as recited in claim 1, further comprising one or more microphones, and the operations further comprising generating the first audio data representing the user speech using the one or more microphones of the first device (Binder: ¶[0053] discloses generating/receiving sound input through microphones and processes it through the audio subsystem).
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder (US 2014/0222436) in view of Wernaers (US 2014/0162555).
Regarding Claim 2:
Binder further discloses the first device as recited in claim 1, except the operations further comprising closing the communication channel to stop sending the second audio data to the second device. However, Wernaers discloses closing the communication channel to stop sending the second audio data to the second device (Wernaers: ¶[0053] the communication channel is the Bluetooth radio link used to send sampled voice to the receiver, transmission may be halted over that link so no more packets containing the voice/sampled speech are sent).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose closing communication between two devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Binder and Wernaers further discloses the first device as recited in claim 2, the operations further comprising determining that a portion of the second audio data does not include user speech, and wherein the closing comprises closing the communication channel at least partly in response to determining that the portion of the second audio data does not include user speech. (Binder: ¶[0138] discloses that silence or irrelevant noise is ignored and an active audio link is not created until the trigger word is verified; Wernaers: ¶[0053]-[0055], ¶[0057], ¶[0059] explicitly detects when the sampled voice signal contains non-speech (silence) and halts transmission in response to that determination which meets “does not include user speech” and “closing in response”).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose closing communication between two devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Regarding Claim 4:
Binder and Wernaer’s further discloses the first device as recited in claim 2, further comprising identifying a context in which the predefined utterance was used in the user speech (Binder: ¶[0059] discloses the digital assistant client gathers information from the surrounding environment to establish a context associated with a user input, ¶[0060] discloses the context may include environmental information and the physical or software state of the device. ¶76 discloses the system obtains context information along with or shortly after receiving the input).
Regarding Claim 5:
Binder and Wernaer’s further discloses the first device as recited in claim 1, further comprising a transmitter, and wherein establishing the communication channel with the second device comprises activating the transmitter of the first device (Wernaer’s: ¶[0018] discloses Bluetooth transmission, i.e., a transmitter as claimed; ¶[0027] and ¶[0070] discloses a communication channel for sending voice packets is realized by the Bluetooth radio link, this is effectively activating the transmitter to establish/commence the active communication channel used to send the audio).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose activating a transmitter of the device in order to send speech data to the other device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers, i.e., only, when necessary, may the transmitter be activated.
Regarding Claim 6:
Binder and Wernaer’s further discloses the first device as recited in claim 1, further comprising a transmitter, and wherein closing the communication channel to stop sending the second audio data to the second device comprises deactivating the transmitter of the first device (Binder: ¶[0014] and ¶[0085] disclose stopping voice transmission and turning off transmitter side components as a power-saving consequence. This means transmission functions are closed which is substantively “deactivating the transmitter”).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose deactivating a transmitter of a first device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Regarding Claim 8:
Binder and Wernaer’s further discloses the first device as recited in claim 1, the operations further comprising:
determining that an additional portion of the second audio data ceases representing the user speech (Binder: ¶[0110]-[0111] discloses detecting that the stream is no longer speech (or no longer meets threshold) and changing state accordingly); and
refraining from sending the additional portion of the second audio data to the second device (Wernaers: ¶[0057] discloses that speech (i.e., silence is detected) and the system then stops sending additional sampled voice packets over the link).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose deactivating a transmitter of a first device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Regarding Claim 9:
Binder discloses a first device comprising:
receiving first audio data representing user speech (Binder: ¶[0013] discloses receiving sound input corresponding to spoken utterance of a user);
performing speech recognition on the first audio data to identify a predefined utterance (Binder: ¶[0007], ¶[0113], discloses detecting trigger sounds by recognizing predefined trigger phrases through pattern matching representations);
establishing, at least partly in response to identifying the predefined utterance, a communication channel with a second device residing in a same environment as the first device (Binder: ¶[0138]-[0139] discloses after trigger detection the device initializes/maintains an active communication link with an external audio system located with the user (same environment));
receiving second audio data representing user speech (Binder: ¶[0020] discloses after the trigger phrase is recognized the assistance wakes, and the user provides follow on speech); and
sending at least a portion of the second audio data to the second device(Binder: ¶[0138] teaches establishing the audio link to an external device and then using it for subsequent audio handling).
Binder fails to teach closing the communication channel to stop sending the second audio data to the second device.
However, Wernaers discloses closing the communication channel to stop sending the second audio data to the second device (Wernaers: ¶[0053] the communication channel is the Bluetooth radio link used to send sampled voice to the receiver, transmission may be halted over that link so no more packets containing the voice/sampled speech are sent).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose closing communication between two devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 has been analyzed with regard to claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 has been analyzed with regard to claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 has been analyzed with regard to claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 has been analyzed with regard to claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 has been analyzed with regard to claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 has been analyzed with regard to claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above. It is noted that Binder discloses one or more processors and computer readable medium in Figs. 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Binder and Wernaers further discloses the first device as recited in claim 17, wherein establishing the communication channel with the second device is based at least in part on identifying the predefined utterance (Binder: ¶[0011] discloses trigger words being identified by the device).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Binder and Wernaers further discloses the first device as recited in claim 18, the operations further comprising analyzing, at least partly before establishing the communication channel with the second device, the predefined utterance to determine whether the predefined utterance is valid (Binder: ¶[0113] discloses the trigger sound detector compares a representation of the received sound input with one or more reference representations of the trigger word and when the representation matches with an acceptable confidence, initiates the speech based service).
Regarding Claim 20
The combination of Binder and Wernaers further discloses the first device as recited in claim 17, further comprising:
determining that an additional portion of the audio data ceases representing the user speech (Binder: ¶[0110]-[0111] discloses detecting that the stream is no longer speech (or no longer meets threshold) and changing state accordingly); and
refraining from sending the additional portion of the audio data to the second electronic device (Wernaers: ¶[0057] discloses that speech (i.e., silence is detected) and the system then stops sending additional sampled voice packets over the link).
Binder and Wernaers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, speech and natural language processing, e.g., both disclose methods for monitoring and transmitting speech samples to electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose closing communication between two devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is: “embodiments of the invention aim at improving the way of reducing the energy consumption of a device using a Bluetooth RTM radio link connection” as disclosed in ¶[0010] of Wernaers.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN SCOTT MCLEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4599. The examiner can normally be reached "Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every 2nd Friday".
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.
/IAN SCOTT MCLEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights