CTNF 18/732,198 CTNF 87828 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 communication is responsive to the application filed on 06/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "a client computing device". Later, they recite “rendering, at the client device or the other computing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the client device” lacks proper antecedent basis because the earlier term was “a client computing device”. It should be changed to “rendering, at the client computing device” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 The claim is directed to a statutory category because it recites a “computer implemented method.” Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites an abstract idea. receiving a first acoustic input determining the first acoustic input is from a first user rendering a first GUI layout based on that determination receiving a second acoustic input determining the second acoustic input is from a second user rendering a second GUI layout different from the first GUI layout These limitations are about collecting information, analyzing the information to identify which user is speaking, and displaying a result based on that identification. This falls within a mental process (because a human could recognize who is speaking and decide which interface or content to show). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are: “a client computing device” “another computing device” These are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions of receiving input and displaying information. The claim does not recite: a specific technique for determining the user from the acoustic input, or an improvement in computer functionality. Accordingly, the claim is still directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A. Step 2B The claim does not include an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The only additional elements are generic computing devices performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities: receiving acoustic input determining a user identity rendering a GUI layout Nothing in the claim indicates that these operations are performed in an unconventional manner. Therefore, the claim merely appends routine and conventional computer implementation to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept under Step 2B and is ineligible under §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 . 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein et al. (US 2015/0154002; hereinafter Weinstein) in view of Mixer et al. (US 2018/0096690; Hereinafter Mixer) . Re claims 1, 8 and 15, Weinstein teaches a computer implemented method, comprising: receiving a first acoustic input at a client computing device (fig. 4 and [0008], performing speech recognition, voice recognition, or both on the audio signal to select a user profile associated with a user interface. The actions also include processing the audio signal to identify at least one characteristic of the speaker); determining the first acoustic input is from a first user (fig. 4 and [0008], select a user profile associated with a user interface); rendering, at the client computing device or another computing device and based on determining the first acoustic input is from the first user, a first graphical user interface (GUI) layout (fig. 4 and [0008], performing speech recognition, voice recognition, or both on the audio signal to select a user profile associated with a user interface. The actions also include processing the audio signal to identify at least one characteristic of the speaker. Also see [0009], customizing the user interface associated with the user profile based on the at least one characteristic may include changing a font size of the user interface based on the at least one characteristic, changing a color scheme of the user interface based on the at least one characteristic); Weinstein does not teach: receiving a second acoustic input at the client computing device; determining the second acoustic input is from a second user; and rendering, at the client device or the other computing device and based on determining the second acoustic input is from the second user, a second GUI layout that is different from the first GUI layout. However, Mixer teaches: receiving a second acoustic input at the client computing device ([0007], an electronic device with a voice assistant system and/or a voice assistant server system that incorporates methods and systems for handling multiple users. Also see [0149], receives a second voice input); determining the second acoustic input is from a second user ([0149], compares the second voice input to the set of voice models, based on the comparing, determines that the second voice input corresponds to a second user of the plurality of users); and rendering, at the client device or the other computing device and based on determining the second acoustic input is from the second user, a second GUI layout that is different from the first GUI layout ([0149], presents a response in accordance with the determination that the second voice input corresponds to the second user. Also see [0152], display a visual user interface associated with the determined user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Mixer’s content into Weinstein’s invention because it would permit the share client computing device to automatically present an appropriate user-specific GUI layout for each detected user, thereby improving convenience and reducing manual profile selection. Re claims 2, 9, and 16, Weinstein teaches wherein the first GUI layout presents content items, rendered by the client computing device or the other computing device, one-by-one in a paginated format (fig. 1 and [0026], the user interface 110a represents the display of the client device before analyzing the voice characteristics of the user 102, and the user interface 110b represents the display after analyzing the voice characteristics of the user 102). Re claims 6, 13, and 20, Weinstein teaches wherein determining the first acoustic input is from the first user is based on a unique identifier associated with the first user ([0065], processes the audio signal to identify one or more characteristics of the speaker) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein in view of Mixer and further in view of Goel et al. (US 2018/0121047; Hereinafter Goel) . Re claims 3, 10, and 17, Mixer teaches wherein the second GUI layout presents content items, rendered by the client computing device or the other computing device ([0149]) but the combination of Weinstein and Mixer does not explicitly teach simultaneously in a scrolling format. However, it is taught by Goel ([0032], scrolling content). In addition, Goel also teaches voice and speech recognition ([0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Goel’s content into the combination of Mixer and Weinstein’s invention because it would allow user an enhanced feature such as the ability to scroll through content. That will allow users to achieve a task in a timely manner . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein in view of Mixer and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent 10,999,636 B1; Hereinafter Kim) . Re claims 4, 11, and 18, Weinstein teaches wherein the client computing device includes a microphone ([0064], the client device may receive an utterance of the speaker at a microphone) but both Weinstein and Mixer doe not teach that the device does not include a display. However, it is taught by Kim (col. 5 and lines 12-20, the device may not include a display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker-recognition system of Weistein, as further modified by Mixer, to a displayless client device of Kim, with the GUI rendered on another computing device because Kim teaches that separating the voice-input device from the display device improves portability, reduces power consumption, and permits use of the system with existing display devices such as smartphones, televisions or tablets. Re claims 5, 12, and 19, Weinstein teaches wherein the other computing device includes a display (fig. 1, display screen) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein in view of Mixer and further in view of Morse et al. (US Patent 9,049,250 B2; Hereinafter Morse) . Re claims 7 and 14, Weinstein wherein content items, rendered by the client computing device or the other computing device, and presented using the first GUI layout (fig. 1, displaying content) but the combination of Weinstein and Mixer does not teach wherein content items are prefetched using one or more prefetch parameters and prefetched using one or more other prefetch parameters. However, it is taught by Morse (col. 7 and lines 50-55, A prefetching module 126 also accesses mobile users profile database 124 to determine and cache content from content sources 118 that a mobile user may soon desire, based on characteristics of the mobile terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Morse’s content into the combination of Mixer and Weinstein’s invention because it would reduce latency and improve responsiveness of the personalized interface. Conclusion The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-274124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 2 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 3 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 4 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 5 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 6 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 7 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 8 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 9 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/732,198 Page 10 Art Unit: 2178
Prosecution Insights