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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding an objection to the specification, applicant filed an amendment on 12/01/2025 by providing a new title and a new abstract. The objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding an obviousness double patenting rejection, applicant amended independent claims 21, 28 and 35 by adding new limitations. The amended claims are no longer obvious over claims in the parent patent (US Pat. 11,704,914). The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding a rejection to claims 24, 31 and 38, applicant cancelled these claims. The rejection to claims 24, 31 and 38 is moot.
Regarding outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 over prior art references, applicant amended all independent claims by adding new limitations.
After carefully reviewing the amended claims in light of the disclosure, the examiner noticed that the original disclosure fails to provide an adequate support for the newly added limitations (see explanations in the section under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)).
Since the newly added limitations do not have an adequate support by the original disclosure, for a purposed of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets claimed features in light of the original disclosure. The examiner rejects the amended independent claims under 35 U.S.C. §103. The applicant’s arguments regarding anticipation under §102 are moot because the arguments do not apply to a new ground of rejection under §103 necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22, 25-29, 32-36, and 39-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended independent claims 21, 28 and 35 by adding new limitations. Applicant stated (Remarks, page 9) that “No new matter is added. Support for the amendments and new claims can be found in at least Paragraphs [0032], [0037-0041], [0043- 0044], and [0048] and FIG. 5B of the originally filed specification”.
The examiner has carefully reviewed the original disclosure including the paragraphs and drawings indicated by the applicant. The examiner could not find an adequate support from the original disclosure for the following newly added limitations.
The amended independent claims 21, 28 and 35 first recite: “in response to determining that the natural language component comprises a trigger phrase, querying a database for a content identification identifier (ID) based on the audible signal;”
The specification describes ([0035]) that “The method 500 includes determining 560 a trigger phrase based on the content ID”. A drawing (Fig. 5A, #560) also shows that a trigger phrase is determined based on a content ID.
A claimed feature defined by the newly added limitation is in contradiction to features described in the original disclosure (Spec. [0035], Fig. 5A, #560). In other words, a claimed feature is that a content ID was obtained by querying a database in response to a trigger phrase. Applicant alleged that Fig. 5B supports the new limitations in the amended claims. However, Fig. 5B only shows a trigger phrase is a commercial ID, which is not the claimed “a content ID”.
The original disclosure mentioned various “ID” (e.g., Fig. 3, an ID, #350, Fig. 4, a next content ID, #420, Fig. 5B, #588, a commercial ID, [0045], a source ID). The specification ([0004-0005]) mentions “The method may include generating an identifier (ID) associated with the speech. The ID may be generated on a condition that the natural language output includes a trigger”. Please note, an ID mentioned in the specification ([0004-0005]) is not the claimed “a content ID”.
The amended independent claims 21, 28 and 35 further recite: “configures the electronic device to activate an operation mode of the electronic device when the electronic device detects future instances of the trigger phrase by analyzing additional audible signals”;
By reviewing the original disclosure, the examiner could not find any support for the claimed: “an operation mode” or “future instances of the trigger phrase”.
In light of the newly presented Abstract and Title (filed on 12/01/2025) as well as the applicant’s arguments, the instant claims are related to features of using an interactive content as described in the specification ([0041-0047]) and a drawing (Fig. 7). It appears the newly added limitations were reasoned / inferred from the specification ([0043], “The system 700 may enhance user interactivity by setting the electronic device 720 to be in prepared state for a specific context, for example an audiobook context, without the user having to provide the context”).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The amended independent claims 21, 28 and 35 further recite: “determining an electronic device associated with the [[ next ]] content ID”. The examiner could not find disclosure related to the above limitation. It appears a claimed “an electronic device” refers to Fig. 7, #720. However, the original disclosure never describes an electronic device is determined to be associated with a content ID, which is obtained by querying a database.
The examiner notices that amended claims must have adequate support in the sense of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The support could not be based on a reasoning / inferring. Dependent claims include limitations of their corresponding independent claims and fail to remedy deficiencies of above issues. All dependent claims are rejected.
For a purposed of compact prosecution, the examiner rejects the amended claims based on an understanding to the claimed features in light of the disclosure.
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 21-22, 25-29, 32-36, and 39-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan (US PG Pub. 2020/00828, a reference submitted by applicant in an IDS, referred to as Mahajan) in view of Williams et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0113094, a reference submitted by the applicant in an IDS filed on 11/20/2024, referred to as Willams)
Mahajan discloses when an interactive TV (Fig. 1, #110, corresponding to a claimed “a media device”) is outputting an interactive content related to a product, the interactive TV sends an ultrasonic wakeup word together with a product identifier to a virtual assistant (Fig. 1, 120, corresponding to a claimed “an electronic device”) so that a user could request more information about the product showing on the TV by speaking a query to the virtual assistant (Mahajan, Abstract and Fig. 1).
Williams discloses a content management system that determines an inaudible signal and provides particular contents based on a content identifier determined from the inaudible signal (Williams, Abstract, [0008-0010], [0074-0076], Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, Mahajan discloses a method, a system and an non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, a computer implemented method / system for retrieving product information using a voice controlled device), comprising:
receiving an audible signal from a media device, wherein the audible signal comprises a natural language output ([0017], Fig. 1, #116, a movie is playing on an interactive TV and mentioning a cool bike);
in response to determining that the natural language output comprises a trigger phrase, querying a database for a next content identification (ID) based on the audible signal ([0017-0020], Fig. 2, when detecting a trigger phrase: “a cool bike”, querying a database to obtain more information about the product based on product ID; also see Fig. 6);
determining an electronic device associated with the next content ID ([0016], [0043], determining a virtual assistant could be used to provide product information based on product ID);
Mahajan discloses a media player (Mahajan, Fig. 1, #110) sends an inaudible ultrasonic signal to activate a virtual assistant (Fig. 1, #120) so that the virtual assistant is prepared to accept voice questions from a user (Fig. 2, #132). Mahajan does not explicitly mention “content ID” in the inaudible signal.
Williams discloses a content management system that determines an inaudible signal and provides particular contents based on a content identifier (ID) determined from the inaudible signal (Williams, Abstract, [0008-0010], [0074-0076], Fig. 6).
Both Mahajan and Williams are dealing with presenting contents and using inaudible signal. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Mahajan’s teaching with Williams’s teaching to transmit content ID and trigger ID using ultrasonic signals as disclosed by Williams. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the content management could obtain more information without user inputs (Williams, [0075-0076]). In addition, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dependent claims 22, 25-27, 29, 32-34, 36, 39-47 further include features that are either explicitly or implicitly disclosed by Mahajan in view of Williams. For example, claims 22, 29 and 36 recite “comprising a voice-activated device connected to a content system via network” (Mahajan, Fig. 1, #120, a voice-activated device). Regarding Claims 25, 32 and 39, Mahajan further discloses the recited limitations (Mahajan, [0032], [0052-0053]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (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 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.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659