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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claims 9 and 12, and “end” and “platform” in claims 14 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites “determine whether domains of a plurality of plans consecutively generated according to a command included in the voice input are identical by a preset number or more, store a recommended command obtained based on the domains in the memory, when the domains are identical by the preset number or more, store a recommended command obtained based on the domains in the memory, when the domains are identical by the preset number or more, and control a client module to be executed based on a plan generated according to the recommended command”.
The limitation of “determine…”, “store…” and “control” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a person issues a command to another, the other party determines whether the domain or intention for multiple actions is the same a certain number of times and memorizes the recommended command accordingly. The other party then controls the machine to perform the corresponding action.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites additional element of “processor” and “memory”. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an 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.
With respect to claim 9, the claim is similar to claim 1 and claim 9 recites additional element of “processor”. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected.
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, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashe (US Pub. 2019/0042601) in view of Belin et al., (US Pat. 10,460,719).
Regarding claim 1, Ashe discloses an electronic device comprising:
an input module configured to receive a voice input from a user (Fig. 2, [0034][0035] receiving voice input from a user);
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 1, [0026] memory); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether [domains] of a plurality of plans consecutively generated according to a command included in the voice input are [identical by a preset number] or more ([0027][0030][0032][0037] identifying and retrieving keywords which are frequently used by the user in a set of sessions over a designated time frame),
store a recommended command obtained based on the domains in the memory, when the domains are identical by the [preset number] or more (Figs. 3B and 5, step 330, [0037][0041][0046]-[0048] storing the updated lists of Most-Frequently Used Command; menu 504 is customized with numbers in the order of frequent use and the numbers are prioritized according to most-frequently-accessed by the user and indicative of “recommended command”(s)),
control a client module to be executed based on a plan generated according to the recommended command (Fig. 5, step 330, [0046]-[0048] a user can make a selection of one of the numbers 1-4 in menu 504 correspond to key presses on mobile device and when a user press the number, the corresponding action is performed).
Ashe does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Belin does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
determine whether [domains] of a plurality of plans consecutively generated according to a command included in the voice input are [identical by a preset number] or more (Fig. 2, Col. 5, line 5 – Col. 6, line 4, when a relevant domain is identified, an interaction record 204 (a)-(d) which indicates the intent of the user relevant to the indicated domain is listed on interaction history 202 with domain icon; The interaction record 204 (e)-(f) has a question mark icon, indicating that a relevant domain could not be identified from the user utterance. If domains are identified two or more, an interaction record is properly listed with icon. Thus preset number is two. ;“Domains may include calendaring, reminders, shopping lists, task lists, other lists, media playback, weather, email, and so forth”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of facilitating mobile device interaction with an enterprise database system as taught by Ashe with the method of identifying an intent of the user was interpreted as being related to domains as taught by Belin to improve performance of the interactive system and the performance of the speech interface platform (Belin, Abstract and Col. 4, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 2, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Belin further discloses:
wherein the client module is configured to generate the plan corresponding to the voice input when identifying the recommended command or a wake-up word preceding the command included in the voice input (Belin, Col. 3, lines 8-15, Col 6, lines 20-25, “a flag word such as “wake” may be used in some embodiments to alert the platform that subsequent user speech is intended to form a command”).
The previous motivation statement as in claim 1 is still applied.
Regarding claim 3, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Ashe further discloses:
the processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify the user using the voice input, and obtain the recommended command based on information about the user and the domains (Ashe, [0025][0035][0041][0072][0091] identifying user’s voice input and tailoring to the user’s voice; a system has user's profile which is a database object to store and maintain data about a given user of a database system).
Regarding claim 4, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to delete the stored recommended command when the recommended command is not input from the user within a preset time ([0044][0046] deleting a command which is rarely or never performed).
Regarding claim 5, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Ashe further discloses:
the processor is configured to execute the instructions to match the recommended command to a recommended wake-up word, and the client module is configured to identify the recommended wake-up word included in the voice input, and generate the plan according to the recommended command corresponding to the recommended wake-up word ([0025][0026][0032][0046] “User input may include or identify a specific command…For instance, … “create”, or a command paired with a record type, such as “create account”…user input parser 124 can parse the text to identify the keyword(s). The identification of such keywords can trigger or further a workflow to create a new account in enterprise database”).
Regarding claim 6, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 5, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to output the recommended command and the recommended wake-up word to a display module (Fig. 5, [0046] the recommend for triggering a work flow, ‘create’ is displayed).
Regarding claim 7, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Ashe further discloses:
a natural language platform configured to process the voice input and generate the plan ([0019][0036] Natural Language Processor processes voice-based keywords received from voice recognition engine and relays information back to voice app).
Regarding claim 8, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 1, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the user who utters the voice input comprising the command is identical to a user who utters a voice input comprising the recommended command ([0077] “accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level, also called authorization”).
Regarding claim 9, Ashe discloses an electronic device comprising:
an input module configured to receive a voice input from a user (Fig. 2, [0034][0035] receiving voice input from a user);
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 1, [0026] memory); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether [domains] of plans consecutively generated according to [a command following the wake-up word included in the voice input are identical by a preset number or more] ([0027][0030][0032][0037] identifying and retrieving keywords which are frequently used by the user in a set of sessions over a designated time frame),
store the recommended command related to a predicted utterance of the user, when the domains are identical by the [preset number] or more (Figs. 3B and 5, step 330, [0037][0041][0046]-[0048] storing the updated lists of Most-Frequently Used Command; menu 504 is customized with numbers in the order of frequent use and the numbers are prioritized according to most-frequently-accessed by the user and indicative of “recommended command”(s)),
control the client module to be executed based on the plan generated according to the recommended command (Fig. 5, step 330, [0046]-[0048] a user can make a selection of one of the numbers 1-4 in menu 504 correspond to key presses on mobile device and when a user press the number, the corresponding action is performed).
Ashe does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Belin does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
a client module configured to generate a plan according to the voice input when identifying a recommended command or identifying a wake-up word to start speech recognition from the voice input (Belin, Col. 3, lines 8-15, Col 6, lines 20-25, “a flag word such as “wake” may be used in some embodiments to alert the platform that subsequent user speech is intended to form a command”).
determine whether [domains] of plans consecutively generated according to [a command following the wake-up word included in the voice input are identical by a preset number or more] (Fig. 2, Col. 5, line 5 – Col. 6, line 4, when a relevant domain is identified, an interaction record 204 (a)-(d) which indicates the intent of the user relevant to the indicated domain is listed on interaction history 202 with domain icon; The interaction record 204 (e)-(f) has a question mark icon, indicating that a relevant domain could not be identified from the user utterance. If domains are identified two or more, an interaction record is properly listed with icon. Thus preset number is two. ;“Domains may include calendaring, reminders, shopping lists, task lists, other lists, media playback, weather, email, and so forth”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of facilitating mobile device interaction with an enterprise database system as taught by Ashe with the method of identifying an intent of the user was interpreted as being related to domains as taught by Belin to improve performance of the interactive system and the performance of the speech interface platform (Belin, Abstract and Col. 4, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 10, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 9, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to identify the user using the voice input, and obtain the recommended command based on information about the user and the domains (Ashe, [0025][0035][0041][0072][0091] identifying user’s voice input and tailoring to the user’s voice; a system has user's profile which is a database object to store and maintain data about a given user of a database system).
Regarding claim 11, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 9, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to delete the stored recommended command when the recommended command is not input from the user within a preset time ([0044][0046] deleting a command which is rarely or never performed).
Regarding claim 12, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 9, and Ashe further discloses:
the processor is configured to match the recommended command to a recommended wake-up word, and the client module is configured to identify the recommended wake-up word included in the voice input, and generate the plan according to the recommended command corresponding to the recommended wake-up word ([0025][0026][0032][0046] “User input may include or identify a specific command…For instance, … “create”, or a command paired with a record type, such as “create account”…user input parser 124 can parse the text to identify the keyword(s). The identification of such keywords can trigger or further a workflow to create a new account in enterprise database”).
Regarding claim 13, Ashe in view of Belin disclose the electronic device of claim 12, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to output the recommended command and the recommended wake-up word to a display module (Fig. 5, [0046] the recommend for triggering a work flow, ‘create’ is displayed).
Regarding claim 14, Ashe disclose an electronic device comprising:
a front end configured to receive a voice input from a user terminal and transmit a response corresponding to the voice input to the user terminal (Figs. 1 and 2, [0034][0035] receiving voice input from a user); and
a natural language platform configured to process the voice input and generate a plan corresponding to the voice input, wherein the natural language platform is configured to determine whether [domains] of plans consecutively generated are [identical by a preset number or more, and store a recommended command obtained based on the domains when the domains are identical by the [preset number] or more ([0019][0036] Natural Language Processor processes voice-based keywords received from voice recognition engine and relays information back to voice app; [0027][0030][0032][0037] identifying and retrieving keywords which are frequently used by the user in a set of sessions over a designated time frame; Figs. 3B and 5, step 330, [0037][0041][0046]-[0048] storing the updated lists of Most-Frequently Used Command; menu 504 is customized with numbers in the order of frequent use and the numbers are prioritized according to most-frequently-accessed by the user and indicative of “recommended command”(s)).
Ashe does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation however Belin does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
wherein the natural language platform is configured to determine whether [domains] of plans consecutively generated are [identical by a preset number or more, and store a recommended command obtained based on the domains when the domains are identical by the [preset number] or more (Fig. 2, Col. 5, line 5 – Col. 6, line 4, when a relevant domain is identified, an interaction record 204 (a)-(d) which indicates the intent of the user relevant to the indicated domain is listed on interaction history 202 with domain icon; The interaction record 204 (e)-(f) has a question mark icon, indicating that a relevant domain could not be identified from the user utterance. If domains are identified two or more, an interaction record is properly listed with icon. Thus preset number is two. ;“Domains may include calendaring, reminders, shopping lists, task lists, other lists, media playback, weather, email, and so forth”), and
the user terminal is configured to transmit the voice input to the front end when the voice input comprises a wake-up word to start speech recognition or the recommended command (Belin, Col. 3, lines 8-15, Col 6, lines 20-25, “a flag word such as “wake” may be used in some embodiments to alert the platform that subsequent user speech is intended to form a command”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of facilitating mobile device interaction with an enterprise database system as taught by Ashe with the method of identifying an intent of the user was interpreted as being related to domains as taught by Belin to improve performance of the interactive system and the performance of the speech interface platform (Belin, Abstract and Col. 4, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 15, Ashe in view of Belin discloses the electronic device of claim 14, and Ashe further discloses:
wherein the natural language platform is configured to match the recommended command and a plan according to the recommended command, and generate a plan according to the recommended command when the recommended command is input ([0025][0026][0032][0046] “User input may include or identify a specific command…For instance, … “create”, or a command paired with a record type, such as “create account”…user input parser 124 can parse the text to identify the keyword(s). The identification of such keywords can trigger or further a workflow to create a new account in enterprise database”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659