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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/07/2026, applicant amended claims 1-20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The examiner thanks the applicant for the attention to the objection to the title and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All of the discussion in the remarks is centered around the correlation aspects that were newly added to the independent claim and will be addressed in the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al., (WO 2018135753 A1) (Provided FIT Database Translation Used for mappings), referred to as KIM hereinafter in view of Azam (U.S. Patent No. 10, 978,060 B2) referred to as AZAM hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, KIM shows an artificial intelligence device, comprising:
a microphone (Page 20, paragraph 2); and
a processor configured to recognize a wake-up command received through the microphone (Page 20, paragraph 2, 'processor 480'), receive a voice command through the microphone after recognition of the wake-up command (Page 20, paragraph 2 wherein a first voice command of the user takes place after/based on a wake-up word.), obtain analysis result information indicating an intention analysis result of the voice command (Page 20, paragraph 2, 'process a first task.), and infer a waiting time, which is a time the artificial intelligence device waits for reception of an additional voice command after the recognition of the wake-up command based on the analysis result information (Page 20, paragraph 7 wherein the system alters the wait time based on situational awareness of the conversation. This changes adaptively and would naturally take place after waking.).
However, KIM fails to but AZAM does specifically disclose receiving the additional voice command through the microphone within the waiting time (Col. 10, lines 43-52 discloses wherein sequential voice commands are received within predetermined waiting times.), and
inferring an another waiting time based on timing information between continuous voice commands and correlation information between continuous voice commands (Col. 10, line 55 – Col. 11, line 35 discloses a system that utilizes correlations between the two commands to infer and/or adjust subsequent voice command waiting times based on learning from the correlation.).
Both KIM and AZAM are analogous art to that of the claimed invention insofar as that they all receive voice commands and perform analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in the spirit of AZAM because it allows voice control not only in a single environment but across an entire platform and lets user personalize commands for specific screens for objects (Col. 2, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 2, KIM shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the processor is configured to compare a preset waiting time and the inferred waiting time, and if the waiting time is greater, change the preset waiting time to the waiting time (Page 26, paragraph 3 wherein there is a preset waiting time, N, and based on the situation (inferred time) more time can be added from the preset time. This would constitute a comparison as the wait would time out if the preset time expired (i.e., is less).).
Regarding claim 3, KIM shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein the processor is configured to obtain another analysis result information indicating an intention analysis result of the received additional voice command (Page 26, paragraph 5 discloses adding an additional command to be analyzed. e.g., adding Banana also would be analyzed and thus added to a shopping list.).
Regarding claim 10, KIM shows an operating method of an artificial intelligence device, comprising:
receiving a wake-up command (Page 20, paragraph 2 wherein a first voice command of the user takes place after/based on a wake-up word.);
receiving a voice command after recognition of the wake-up command (Page 20, paragraph 2 wherein a first voice command of the user takes place after/based on a wake-up word.);
obtaining analysis result information indicating an intention analysis result of the voice command (Page 20, paragraph 2, 'process a first task.); and
inferring a waiting time, which is a time the artificial intelligence device waits for reception of an additional voice command after the recognition of the wake-up command based on the analysis result information (Page 20, paragraph 7 wherein the system alters the wait time based on situational awareness of the conversation. This changes adaptively and would naturally take place after waking.).
However, KIM fails to but AZAM does specifically disclose receiving the additional voice command through the microphone within the waiting time (Col. 10, lines 43-52 discloses wherein sequential voice commands are received within predetermined waiting times.), and
inferring an another waiting time based on timing information between continuous voice commands and correlation information between continuous voice commands (Col. 10, line 55 – Col. 11, line 35 discloses a system that utilizes correlations between the two commands to infer and/or adjust subsequent voice command waiting times based on learning from the correlation.).
Both KIM and AZAM are analogous art to that of the claimed invention insofar as that they all receive voice commands and perform analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in the spirit of AZAM because it allows voice control not only in a single environment but across an entire platform and lets user personalize commands for specific screens for objects (Col. 2, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 11, KIM shows an inactive recording medium storing a computer-readable program for performing an operating method of an artificial intelligence device, the operating method comprising:
receiving a wake-up command (Page 20, paragraph 2 wherein a first voice command of the user takes place after/based on a wake-up word.);
receiving a voice command after recognition of the wake-up command (Page 20, paragraph 2 wherein a first voice command of the user takes place after/based on a wake-up word.);
obtaining analysis result information indicating an intention analysis result of the voice command (Page 20, paragraph 2, 'process a first task.); and
inferring a waiting time, which is a time the artificial intelligence device waits for reception of an additional voice command after the recognition of the wake-up command based on the analysis result information (Page 20, paragraph 7 wherein the system alters the wait time based on situational awareness of the conversation. This changes adaptively and would naturally take place after waking.).
However, KIM fails to but AZAM does specifically disclose receiving the additional voice command through the microphone within the waiting time (Col. 10, lines 43-52 discloses wherein sequential voice commands are received within predetermined waiting times.), and
inferring an another waiting time based on timing information between continuous voice commands and correlation information between continuous voice commands (Col. 10, line 55 – Col. 11, line 35 discloses a system that utilizes correlations between the two commands to infer and/or adjust subsequent voice command waiting times based on learning from the correlation.).
Both KIM and AZAM are analogous art to that of the claimed invention insofar as that they all receive voice commands and perform analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in the spirit of AZAM because it allows voice control not only in a single environment but across an entire platform and lets user personalize commands for specific screens for objects (Col. 2, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 12, KIM shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, and further shows comparing a preset waiting time and the inferred waiting time, and if the waiting time is greater, changing the preset waiting time to the first waiting time (Page 26, paragraph 3 wherein there is a preset waiting time, N, and based on the situation (inferred time) more time can be added from the preset time. This would constitute a comparison as the wait would time out if the preset time expired (i.e., is less).).
Regarding claim 13, KIM shows the limitations of claim 12 as applied above, and further shows obtaining second analysis result information indicating an intention analysis result of the received additional voice command (Page 26, paragraph 5 discloses adding an additional command to be analyzed. e.g., adding Banana also would be analyzed and thus added to a shopping list.).
Regarding claim 20, KIM shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, and further shows comparing a preset waiting time and the inferred first waiting time, and if the waiting time is greater, changing the preset waiting time to the waiting time (Page 26, paragraph 3 wherein there is a preset waiting time, N, and based on the situation (inferred time) more time can be added from the preset time. This would constitute a comparison as the wait would time out if the preset time expired (i.e., is less).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of AZAM and in further view of Min et al., (US 2020/0273448 A1) referred to as MIN hereinafter.
Regarding claim 4, KIM in view of AZAM shows the limitations of claim 3 as applied above, and further shows wherein the processor is configured to:
assign a first intention corresponding to the analysis result information to a command hierarchy structure indicating a plurality of nodes corresponding to each of a plurality of intentions and a hierarchical relationship between the plurality of nodes (Figure 9 and Page 27, paragraph 4 through Page 28 discloses the situation where, based on the first analysis, a genus is discovered, then subsequent species in the hierarchy are predicted and given in-context waiting times.), and determine a time corresponding to the calculated first probability as the first waiting time (Figure 9 and Page 27, paragraph 4 through Page 28 discloses the situation where, based on the first analysis, a genus is discovered, then subsequent species in the hierarchy are predicted and given in-context waiting times.).
However, KIM and AZAM fail to but MIN does specifically show calculating a first probability that the additional voice command will be input based on an assignment result (Paragraph [0033] discloses determining an 'end-of-command' probability, which would effectively be the determination of the presence or absence of a second or additional command.).
Both KIM in view of AZAM and MIN are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they use ML or AI in voice based conversational communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in view of AZAM in the spirit of MIN to combine the above prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
KIM in view of AZAM, in view of MIN, includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. Merely using probability to predict future utterances is a well-known technique in the art, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable in so far as that this is a time-tested and routine use of statistics to aid in the prediction of voice commands.
Regarding claim 14, KIM in view of AZAM shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above, and further shows the inference of the first waiting time comprises:
assigning a first intention corresponding to the analysis result information to a command hierarchy structure indicating a plurality of nodes corresponding to each of a plurality of intentions and a hierarchical relationship between the plurality of nodes (Figure 9 and Page 27, paragraph 4 through Page 28 discloses the situation where, based on the first analysis, a genus is discovered, then subsequent species in the hierarchy are predicted and given in-context waiting times.) and determining a time corresponding to the calculated first probability as the waiting time (Figure 9 and Page 27, paragraph 4 through Page 28 discloses the situation where, based on the first analysis, a genus is discovered, then subsequent species in the hierarchy are predicted and given in-context waiting times.).
However, KIM in view of AZAM fails to but MIN does specifically show calculating a first probability that the additional voice command will be input based on an assignment result (Paragraph [0033] discloses determining an 'end-of-command' probability, which would effectively be the determination of the presence or absence of a second or additional command.).
Both KIM in view of AZAM and MIN are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they use ML or AI in voice based conversational communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in view of AZAM in the spirit of MIN to combine the above prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
KIM in view of AZAM, in view of MIN, includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. Merely using probability to predict future utterances is a well-known technique in the art, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable in so far as that this is a time-tested and routine use of statistics to aid in the prediction of voice commands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights