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 and 3-16 are pending in this application.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper (REMARKS, on page 8, 2nd paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is proper because the newly amended claims are still directed to abstract idea.
Step 1: Claim 16 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware comprising the following limitations:
Determining whether similar types of commands are input consecutively.
Determining a recommended command if the same type is input by the certain number of times.
When the recommended command is entered, it operates, and ordinary commands usually require a specific word to be preceded to start a process before performing the operation.
These steps describe the collection, processing, and analysis of data relating to voice commands and user behavior. Courts have consistently held that such concepts—collecting information, analyzing or processing data, and adjusting a model or system based on the results—are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection, analysis, and display are abstract ideas); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content is an abstract idea).
Here, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and processing data (learning from repeated user behavior), analyzing that data (determining domains), and using that analysis to update a command list (determining a recommended command).
Conclusion: Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
The claim recites implementation on generic data processing hardware and routine computer components such as applications and monitoring modules executing on the user device. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or any particular hardware configuration that improves the performance of the device or the speech recognition system.
Each limitation can be viewed as conventional computer functions or generic data processing:
determining user behavior (generic data collection).
Determining a recommended command (standard data analysis and basic decision-making).
Instructing an application to perform an action (routine control operation).
The claim does not recite any technical details about how the confidence model operates differently from conventional models, nor does it describe any novel hardware or software architecture that improves computer functionality. The steps are performed on generic hardware without any specific enhancement to the technology.
The claim thus fails to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (holding that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient).
Therefore, the claim 16 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claim 1, the claim 1 is similar to claim 16.
With respect to dependent claims 3-15 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality. As such, claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
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 claim 1, 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 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 16 recites “receiving voice inputs by an input module; determining whether domains of a plurality of plans consecutively generated according to commands included in voice inputs received by the input module are identical by a preset number or more; based on the domains being identical by the preset number or more, determining a recommended command; based on a command and a wake-up word proceeding the command being included in a voice input received by the input module, controlling a client module to be executed according to a plan corresponding to the command; and based on the recommended command being included in a voice input received by the input module without being proceeded by the wake-up word, control the client module to be executed according to a plan corresponding to the recommended command”.
The limitation of “receiving…”, “determine…” 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. 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 1, the claim is similar to claim 16 and claim 1 recites additional element of “processor” and “memory”. 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 3-15, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 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
Prosecution Insights