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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 18/684,367, which was filed 02/16/24. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application and have been considered.
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, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a step (a) of performing at least any one of detecting the target person, detecting a state of an installation object which is installed in the residence and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person, and detecting a state of an environment in the residence; and a step (b) of performing an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection in the step (a), and storing information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in a storage section”.
The limitation of a step (a) of performing at least any one of detecting the target person, detecting a state of an installation object which is installed in the residence and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person, and detecting a state of an environment in the residence, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “a step (a) of performing at least any one of detecting the target person, detecting a state of an installation object which is installed in the residence and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person, and detecting a state of an environment in the residence” in the context of this claim encompasses visually observing a target person, a state of an object installed in a residence, e.g. whether an oven door is open, and a state of an environment, e.g. whether anything is inside the oven.
Similarly, the limitation of “performing an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection in the step (a), and storing information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in a storage section”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection in the step (a), and storing information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in a storage section” in the context of this claim encompasses speaking an utterance to the target person e.g. “Would you like to shut the oven door”, writing down a transcript of the conversation, and storing it in a paper file.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – “a voice response device”. The device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic voice response device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic voice response device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 6 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 6 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 6 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of making observations and performing an utterance, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to a system and device respectively that perform steps similar to claim 6, which can be performed entirely by a human for reasons similarly to those of claim 6. While these claims recite additional elements – “one or more detection sensors”, and “a voice response device”, the sensors and device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic one or more detection sensors, and as a generic voice response device) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 depends from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claim 2 merely recites additional steps for making observations and performing utterances, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing down relationships with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “the voice response device is configured to grasp the situation of the target person from the conversation content, and perform corresponding processing in accordance with the grasped situation” which could be performed by mentally grasping the situation of the target person from the conversation content and perform corresponding mental processing in accordance with the grasped situation. The generic voice response device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements for similar reasons to those discussed above with regard to claim 1.
As seen above, none of the limitations in claim 2 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Eligible Claims
Claim 3 recites “the voice response device is configured to transmit an operation signal to a device installed in the residence, and transmit the operation signal giving an instruction for an operation in accordance with the situation to the device, as the corresponding processing” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 4 is also eligible because it further limits the eligible subject matter of claim 3, and additionally recites “the voice response device is configured to perform the utterance to the target person in order to check a change in the situation by the operation of the device based on the operation signal, after transmitting the operation signal”.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20170069324) in view of Mutagi et al. (US 11100922).
Consider claim 1, Gardner discloses a situation awareness system for grasping a situation of a target person (understanding that a user is proximate to the oven when asking “Temperature to fry an egg” using sensors and controller, [0036]), the situation awareness system comprising:
one or more detection sensors configured to perform at least any one of detecting the target person (motion sensor detects user proximate to the oven, [0036]), detecting a state of an installation object which is installed and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person (detecting that the door of the oven is in an open position, [0036]), and detecting a state of an environment (e.g. whether the door to the refrigerator, an temperature controlled environment within the kitchen, is open, [0023]);
a voice response device configured to perform a voice response including an utterance to the target person (in response to the user command “Temperature to fry an egg”, the controller responds with an audible answer through the speaker indicating to the user an appropriate temperature setting for the burners to fry an egg, [0036], [0034], [0042], for which “an utterance” is considered inherent); and
a storage section configured to store information (memory in the computer based system, [0025]),
wherein the voice response device is configured to perform an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection by the detection sensor (controller performs audible response through the speaker in light of trigger input indicating the user is positioned proximate to and potentially using oven appliance, [0036]), and store information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in the storage section (computer based system having memory receives audio input by microphones, and plays an audio signal in response to received user voice command, [0020], [0025]; storage of at least the recorded waveform is inherent for both speech recognition and audio playback).
While perhaps implied or suggested by the perspective view of the kitchen in Figure 1, Gardner does not specifically mention a residence.
Mutagi discloses a residence (kitchen appliances in a household, a house with residents, Col 1 liens 57-65, Col 2 lines 35-40). The examiner also notes that Mutagi explicitly describes a voice response via text-to-speech (Col 11 lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the invention of in a residential kitchen as in Mutagi in order to make the voice commands more useful to the user, as suggested by Mutagi (Col 2 lines 7-11). Doing so would have led to predictable results of enhanced user experience, as suggested by Mutagi (Col 2 lines 11-13). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of speech recognition.
Consider claim 5, Gardner discloses voice response device configured to perform a voice response including an utterance to a target person (in response to the user command “Temperature to fry an egg”, the controller responds with an audible answer through the speaker indicating to the user an appropriate temperature setting for the burners to fry an egg, [0036], [0034], [0042], for which “an utterance” is considered inherent), the voice response device comprising:
one or more detection sensors configured to perform at least any one of detecting the target person (motion sensor detects user proximate to the oven, [0036]), detecting a state of an installation object which is installed e and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person (detecting that the door of the oven is in an open position, [0036]), and detecting a state of an environment (e.g. whether the door to the refrigerator, an temperature controlled environment within the kitchen, is open, [0023]); and
a storage section configured to store information (memory in the computer based system, [0025]),
wherein the voice response device is configured to perform an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection by the detection sensor (in response to the user command “Temperature to fry an egg”, the controller responds with an audible answer through the speaker indicating to the user an appropriate temperature setting for the burners to fry an egg, [0036], [0034], [0042], for which “an utterance” is considered inherent), and store information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in the storage section (computer based system having memory receives audio input by microphones, and plays an audio signal in response to received user voice command, [0020], [0025]; storage of at least the recorded waveform is inherent for both speech recognition and audio playback).
While perhaps implied or suggested by the perspective view of the kitchen in Figure 1, Gardner does not specifically mention a residence.
Mutagi discloses a residence (kitchen appliances in a household, a house with residents, Col 1 liens 57-65, Col 2 lines 35-40). The examiner also notes that Mutagi explicitly describes a voice response via text-to-speech (Col 11 lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the invention of in a residential kitchen as in Mutagi for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 6, Gardner discloses situation awareness method of grasping a situation of a target person by a voice response device (understanding that a user is proximate to the oven when asking “Temperature to fry an egg” using sensors and controller, [0036]), the situation awareness method comprising:
a step (a) of performing at least any one of detecting the target person (motion sensor detects user proximate to the oven, [0036]), detecting a state of an installation object which is installed and of which the state is changeable due to an operation of the target person (detecting that the door of the oven is in an open position, [0036]), and detecting a state of an environment (e.g. whether the door to the refrigerator, an temperature controlled environment within the kitchen, is open, [0023]); and
a step (b) of performing an utterance to the target person with a content in accordance with a result of the detection in the step (a) (in response to the user command “Temperature to fry an egg”, the controller responds with an audible answer through the speaker indicating to the user an appropriate temperature setting for the burners to fry an egg, [0036], [0034], [0042], for which “an utterance” is considered inherent), and storing information including a conversation content with the target person accompanying the utterance in a storage section (computer based system having memory receives audio input by microphones, and plays an audio signal in response to received user voice command, [0020], [0025]; storage of at least the recorded waveform is inherent for both speech recognition and audio playback).
While perhaps implied or suggested by the perspective view of the kitchen in Figure 1, Gardner does not specifically mention a residence.
Mutagi discloses a residence (kitchen appliances in a household, a house with residents, Col 1 liens 57-65, Col 2 lines 35-40). The examiner also notes that Mutagi explicitly describes a voice response via text-to-speech (Col 11 lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the invention of in a residential kitchen as in Mutagi for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Gardner discloses the voice response device is configured to grasp the situation of the target person from the conversation content, and perform corresponding processing in accordance with the grasped situation (controller performs audible response through the speaker in light of trigger input indicating the user is positioned proximate to and potentially using oven appliance, [0036]).
Consider claim 3, Gardner discloses the voice response device is configured to transmit an operation signal to a device installed, and transmit the operation signal giving an instruction for an operation in accordance with the situation to the device, as the corresponding processing (controller response by controlling the oven appliance 28 to modify a temperature setting of one of the burners to the appropriate temperature setting for such burner to fry an egg, [0036], transmission of a control signal inherent for doing so).
While perhaps implied or suggested by the perspective view of the kitchen in Figure 1, Gardner does not specifically mention a residence.
Mutagi discloses a residence (kitchen appliances in a household, a house with residents, Col 1 liens 57-65, Col 2 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the invention of in a residential kitchen as in Mutagi for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20170069324) in view of Mutagi et al. (US 11100922), in further view of Ni et al. (US 20180096681).
Consider claim 4, Gardner and Mutagi do not, but Ni discloses the voice response device is configured to perform the utterance to the target person in order to check a change in the situation by the operation of the device based on the operation signal, after transmitting the operation signal (user says “I need a pick-me-up” and client device opens music playing application to a streaming music station, i.e. transmits an operation signal, and afterwards, prompts the user with “Is this what you wanted when you said you needed to pick-me-up?”, [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gardner and Mutag such that the voice response device is configured to perform the utterance to the target person in order to check a change in the situation by the operation of the device based on the operation signal, after transmitting the operation signal in order to better handle ambiguous user voice commands, as suggested by NI ([0077]), predictably improving device performance, as suggested by Ni ([0077]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of speech recognition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210200509 Gosu discloses voice command confirmation for a media playback device
US 20200411001 Ennen discloses controlling appliances by voice command, and requesting confirmation from the user with a voice prompt
US 10431220 Emerick discloses a voice assistant system which takes voice commands and monitors environment in a patient care context
US 20200082818 Koga discloses a voice control system
US 20200043489 Bradley discloses voice assistant devices
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 09/25/25