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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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);
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).
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
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.
4. 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: ¶[0128] and ¶[0131] explicitly identifies context (orientation, enclosed space, time of day, driving etc.) and uses it to select modes/behavior of the trigger).
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: ¶[0011] discloses using predetermined conditions and thresholds to verify a word was spoken).
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
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