DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites executing a function corresponding to an audio recognition based on an audio signal and a user’s input as “additional input”, and “at least one preset trigger word being included in the received audio signal” by which, “misrecognized” is determined, etc.
The limitation of determining “whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized” and “determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, because it is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving an audio signal” is nothing more than a listener to receive a perception from a conversation between the listener and a partner who is talking and the listener can determine whether a keyword or preset trigger word is in the perception of the conversation and then realized a “misrecognition” of the talking word due to environment noise, history, no history, spelling, grammar, semanticity, intention, etc. Similarly, “determining” a misrecognition of the word happens due to realized environment conditions, background noises, history, no history, grammar check, semanticity, intention guess, etc., would also be practiced by human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Similarly, broadly claiming a request for a confirmation or a correction to the misrecognized word and taking an action thereafter would also cover execution of human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element to make an action as a corrected voice command from the corrected word above and this 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element merely to requesting a further instruction to the talker from the user and performing “an execution” of “a function”, etc. amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the 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, see Sample Rejection of Example 37 – claim 3 – under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG”.
Claim 11 further recited “an electronic device” comprising “memory” and “at least one processor” configured to execute instructions stored in “memory” to perform the method of claim 1. However, recitation of generic computer components including “a processor” is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind as discussed in claim 1 above. This additional element “memory” and “processor” is recited in a high-level of generality, i.e., a generic processor performing the abstract idea such that if it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 11 above.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further recited “wherein the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on a history of execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition within a preset first time” which is a further process of “determining of whether … misrecognized” with no technology to have been used, but merely practiced in mind, e.g., human can refer to his/her experiences to make the decision of “whether … misrecognized” under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and further recited “the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on there being no history of execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition within the preset first time” which is also process that would be practiced in mind because human make his/her determination including whether “trigger word” in the perception “is misrecognized” without reference of “history” data. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further recited “wherein the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized comprises: synchronizing the received audio signal and a reference audio signal output from another electronic device; and determining that the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized when similarity between the synchronized audio signal and the synchronized reference audio signal is greater than or equal to a preset first threshold” which imposed a scenario that similar pattern of noise to the “trigger word” perceived nearly simultaneously or synchronically and is also process that would be practiced in mind. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and further recited “wherein the requesting of the additional input from the user comprises: adjusting an intensity of the reference audio signal to less than or equal to a preset second threshold; and requesting the additional input for the at least one preset trigger word from the user”, which is further processed that would be practiced in mind. For example, the listener can be able to intend to make an adjustment of the volume of the external device, under its BRI. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and further recited “wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on the received audio signal comprising at least one input signal in addition to the at least one preset trigger word” which is also further process that would be practiced in mind under its BRI. For example, human can compare the perceived spoken word with a dictionary word to question whether the word is correct or incorrect. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and further recited “wherein the requesting the additional input from the user comprises requesting, from the user, another additional input related to whether to perform the at least one input signal included in the audio signal” which is further process step that would be conducted in mind. For example, the listener can be able make further request to the talker for clarification in mind. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 6 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 6 and further recited “wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: dividing the audio signal into multiple sections, wherein the multiple sections do not comprise a section corresponding to the at least one preset trigger word; and determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized based on at least one of: energy values of the multiple sections or zero-crossing rates (ZCRs) of the multiple sections” This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and further recited “wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: measuring a similarity between the at least one preset trigger word and the received audio signal; and determining that the at least one preset trigger word has a measured similarity that is greater than or equal to a third threshold” which is further process step that would be conducted in mind. For example, the listener can have a threshold of similarity as criteria for judging whether the “trigger word” is misrecognized or not under its BRI. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and further recited “wherein when more than one preset trigger words have a corresponding measured similarity that is greater than or equal to the third threshold, the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: determining that a word, among the more than one preset trigger words having the corresponding measured similarity greater than or equal to the third threshold, has the corresponding measured similarity that is smaller than a fourth threshold” which is similar to claim 9, with more than one threshold values and however, for example, the listener can maintain multiple criteria to judge whether the “trigger word” is corrupted or misrecognized while compared to the multiple criteria in mind under its BRI. This 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of claim 9 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 2 above.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 4 above.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and recited “the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on there being no history of execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition within the preset first time”, while parent claim 2 recited a contrary to claim 3 by reciting “the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on a history of execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition within a preset first time”, which is confusing because it is unclear whether “determining of whether …” above is based on “a history of execution of …” as recited in parent claim 2 or is based on “there being no history of execution of …” as recited in dependent claim 3, and thus, renders claim indefinite.
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 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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 9691378 B1, hereinafter Meyers) and in view of reference Kim et al. (KR 20120110392 A, English translation as attached and applied in paragraph citation below of Kim).
Claim 1: Meyers teaches a method of processing a misrecognized audio signal in an electronic device (title and abstract, ln 1-15, method in figs. 3, 8, and executed on a voice activated electronic device 10 in fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving an audio signal (audio input data by using one or more microphones, col 4, ln 6-10);
based on at least one preset trigger word (wakeword, e.g., “Alexa”, at step 318 in fig. 3 and through wakewords database 216, col 9, ln 46-52) being included in the received audio signal (from monitored audio input data for the determination above at step 3016 in fig. 3), determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized (by determining whether wakeword occurs during modified time window, e.g., misrecognized if within the modified time window, and ignored, col 15, ln 31-39 and otherwise, correctly recognized and can’t be ignored, col 15, ln 67, col 16, ln 1-3);
based on the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized (the wakeword determined within the modified time window, and discussed above, col 15, ln 31-39), executing a function corresponding to audio recognition (executing an ignore function of misrecognized portion in the voice and executing the voice command such as “What is the weather like?”, etc., after ignoring the wakeword “Alexa” 30, in fig. 7A, col 20, ln 4-10).
However, Meyers does not explicitly teach requesting an additional input from a user and based on the audio signal and the additional input from the user received in response to the request, executing a function corresponding to audio recognition.
Kim teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method of processing a misrecognized audio signal (title and abstract, ln 1-15 and figs. 4-5) and wherein
determining that at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized (via large voice recognition error with respect to a voice input to the voice recognition 10, para 2, p.8; e.g., misrecognition of “yeast” due to a voice recognition error, para Table 2, p.10 and by the first recognition, para Table 3, para 10 or “agonist” obtained from the user is misrecognized to cause unclearness, para Table 4, p.11 and misrecognized “automatic”, “thawing”, para Table 5, p.11),
based on the determination above, requesting an additional input from a user (a confirmation conversation request to the user is performed, e.g., upon a low reliability value 0.3, the last paragraph of p.10); and
based on the audio signal and the additional input from the user received in response to the request (the confirmation conversation request to the user is initiated above), executing a function corresponding to audio recognition (the next utterance of the user is recognized as “thawing copper”, and triggering further performance of the confirmation conversation again, para 2 of p.11 and until all information of the current state is sufficiently reliable and the information is transferred over the control authority to an conversation management unit 120 that performs work-related conversation management, para 6 of p.9) for benefits of improving reliability of audio signal recognition (by performing the confirmation conversation with new word inputted, para 2 of p.11; until a reliability threshold value is achieved, para 4-7 of p.9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied requesting the additional input from the user and based on the audio signal and the additional input from the user received in response to the request, executing the function corresponding to audio recognition, as taught by Kim, to execution of the function corresponding to audio recognition based on the determining that the at least one preset trigger word being misrecognized in the method of processing the misrecognized audio signal in the electronic device, as taught by Meyers, for the benefits discussed above.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 above and the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, the electronic device comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Meyers, memory 204 storing instructions, data, and program moules, col 9, ln 8-12); and at least one processor (Meyers, FPGA, GPU, CPU, etc., 202 in fig. 2, col 8, ln 52-67, col 9, ln 1-7) configured to execute the one or more instructions, wherein one of the at least one processor is configured to implement the method of claim 1.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 11 above.
Claim 2: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 1 above, the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is also based on a history of execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition (Meyers, comparing the words in response with wakeword 306 that was identified within the response 306 for output 310, the modified time window to be applied in a later determination whether the wakeword would be ignored or not 322 in fig. 3, wherein 306-314 are actions prior to the actions 316-320 as a history of audio-recognition associated execution of the function and Kim, the confirmation conversation is repeated, para Table 5, p.11, until the reliability for all information has a value equal to or greater than the threshold value, para 7, p.9, i.e., the execution of the confirmation conversation as a history with respect to the following confirmation conversation) within a preset first time (Meyers, the modified time window created at step 314 and applied immediately to the following wakeword recognition in 316-322 in fig. 3 and Kim, the repeated confirmation conversation is immediately following the next one, i.e., predetermined first time).
Claim 3 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 2 above (e.g., Meyers, no disclosure of any history about action of requesting “My name is …” by the user for recognition of wakeword included in the user’s speech until the steps 316-322 in fig. 3, and Kim, the reliability of word recognition is greater than or equal to the threshold, and then, reliable information obtained, para 7, p.9, i.e., there is no disclosure that obtaining the reliable information is as an action, and there is no disclosure that the history of the execution of the function corresponding to the audio recognition within the preset first time is relied for determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized).
Claim 4: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the determining of whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized comprises:
synchronizing the received audio signal (Meyers, audio input data from the user at step 316, col 14, ln 61-67, col 15, ln 1-3, and Kim, through voice conversation from a user, abstract) and a reference audio signal output from another electronic device (Meyers, the response outputted from a backend system 100, and received by the voice activated electronic device 10, col 13, ln 19-30 and synchronized by the created modified time window at step 314 for creation and application to the following audio input data at the step 320 in fig. 3); and
determining that the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized when similarity between the synchronized audio signal and the synchronized reference audio signal is greater than or equal to a preset first threshold (Meyers, at least based on the calculated score of likelihood that the wakeword is represented within the detected audio signal greater than a threshold at step 318 and the detected wakeword occurs within the modified time window, the misrecognition occurred and ignored as action in fig.3 , col 15, ln 4-30).
Claim 6: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized is based on the received audio signal comprising at least one input signal in addition to the at least one preset trigger word (Meyers, played audio data before 225ms, col 15, ln 22-30, e.g., the phrase “My name is” that do not ignore in figs. 1, 7A and Kim, “thawing” or “automatic” prior to “thawing copper”, para Table 5, p.11).
Claim 7: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 6 above, wherein the requesting the additional input from the user comprises requesting, from the user, another additional input related to whether to perform the at least one input signal included in the audio signal (Kim, from “automatic”, to request for “thawing”, and then to “thawing copper” having higher reliability, but may not be unclear as much as the confirmation conversation for repeat performing the confirmation conversation, para Table 5, p.11 and until a reliability value for the further information including further additional conversation contents is equal to or greater than a threshold value, para 7, p.9).
Claim 9: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: measuring a similarity between the at least one preset trigger word and the received audio signal; and determining that the at least one preset trigger word has a measured similarity that is greater than or equal to a third threshold (Meyers, at least based on the calculated score of likelihood that the wakeword is represented within the detected audio signal greater than a threshold at step 318 and the detected wakeword occurs within the modified time window, the misrecognition occurred and ignored as action in fig.3 , col 15, ln 4-30 and the discussion in claim 4 above).
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 2 above.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 4 above.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11, 6 above.
Claims 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (above) and in view of references Kim (above) and Kato (JP 2019032387 A, English translation as attached and applied in paragraph citation by Kato).
Claim 5: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 4 above, wherein the requesting of the additional input from the user comprises: requesting the additional input for the at least one preset trigger word from the user (Kim, e.g., based on the detected “automatic” and “thawing” to the further confirmation conversation for “thawing copper”, etc., para Table 5, p.11), except explicitly teaching adjusting an intensity of the reference audio signal to less than or equal to a preset second threshold.
Kato teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method of processing a misrecognized audio signal in an electronic device (title and abstract, ln 1-8 and method in fig. 3) and wherein adjusting an intensity of the reference audio signal to less than or equal to a preset second threshold (SA1: external sound volume is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, and step SA2: reducing the external sound volume, para 5-7, p.7) and an additional input for the at least one preset trigger word from the user (user utterance is determined by the control unit 101, para 1, p.6) is performed for benefits of reducing misrecognition of user’s speech (by reducing external or reference signal intensity before the collecting the user’s sound for speech recognition due to higher level of external or reference noises, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied adjusting the intensity of the reference audio signal to less than or equal to the preset second threshold, as taught by Kato, to requesting the additional input from the user comprises: requesting the additional input for the at least one preset trigger word from the user in the method, as taught by the combination of Meyers and Kim, for the benefits discussed above.
Claim 8: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 6 above, wherein the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: dividing the audio signal into multiple sections, wherein the multiple sections do not comprise a section corresponding to the at least one preset trigger word (Meyers, the audio signal in fig. 7A, segmented as 20ms-30ms, 30ms-40ms, and after 40ms in fig. 7A); and determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized (the discussed in claims 1, 6 above), except explicitly teaching wherein determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized based on at least one of: energy values of the multiple sections or zero-crossing rates ZCRs of the multiple sections.
Kato teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method of processing a misrecognized audio signal in an electronic device (title and abstract, ln 1-8 and method in fig. 6) and wherein determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized based on energy values of the multiple sections or zero-crossing rates ZCRs of the multiple sections (radio receiver 30, air conditioner 40, air cleaner 50, etc., as external devices, installed in a room in which the terminal device 10 is installed, measurement unit 1002 measured sound volume represented by the sound collection data and directing microphones to specific external devices for collecting sound data according to the sound sources above, i.e., energy values of multiple sections of audio signal are obtained, para 2, p.4, and for adjusting sound volume of external device from multiple external devices, if the sound volume for the external device measured to be equal to or greater than threshold, SA1, para 4-6, p.5, including a user’s spoken sound data, para 1-2, p.6; claimed feature interpreted as Markush, MPEP 2117) for the benefits discussed in claim 5 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied wherein determining whether the at least one preset trigger word included in the audio signal is misrecognized based on at least one of: the energy values of the multiple sections or zero-crossing rates ZCRs of the multiple sections, as taught by Kato, to determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises dividing the audio signal into multiple sections in the method, as taught by the combination of Meyers and Kim, for the benefits discussed above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (above) and in view of references Kim (above) and Chen et al. (CN 113160802 A, English translation as attached and applied in Chen’s paragraph citation below).
Claim 10: the combination of Meyers and Kim further teaches, according to claim 9 above, wherein when more than one preset trigger words have a corresponding measured similarity that is greater than or equal to the third threshold (Meyers, two or more different wakewords that may each activated voice activated electronic device 20, col 5, ln 10-14), the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized (the discussion in claims 1, 9 above) except explicitly teaching wherein at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises:
determining that a word, among the more than one preset trigger words having the corresponding measured similarity greater than or equal to the third threshold, has the corresponding measured similarity that is smaller than a fourth threshold.
Chen teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method of processing a misrecognized audio signal in an electronic device (title and abstract, ln 1-8 and method in fig. 6) and wherein a third threshold and a fourth threshold are disclosed (a first threshold value and a second threshold value, e.g., one is 0.7 and one is 0.8, para 2, p.17) and wherein wherein at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises:
determining that a word, among the more than one preset trigger words (a wake-up word has a plurality of similar words, para 4, p.19 and based on combination of first classification result and second classification result, para 2, p.19) having the corresponding measured similarity greater than or equal to the third threshold (matching an awaking word of the sentence state sequence of the voice is measured via the second threshold value and applied to a first classification result, para 2, p.14), has the corresponding measured similarity that is smaller than a fourth threshold (the similarity of similar word to the wakening word is measured to be equal to or less than the first threshold value, para 4-5, p.22, and initiated wakeword action at step 305 in fig. 3, i.e., false detection of wakeword by detecting similar word of the wakeword is avoided as the misrecognized, para 5-6, p.18 and para 1-4, para 19) for the benefits of reducing the chance of malwaking condition (by not just wakening word check, but also similar word of the wakening word, para 3, p.17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied wherein the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized comprises: determining that the word, among the more than one preset trigger words having the corresponding measured similarity greater than or equal to the third threshold, has the corresponding measured similarity that is smaller than the fourth threshold, as taught by Chen, to the determining that the at least one preset trigger word is misrecognized upon the at least one preset trigger word being included in the received audio signal in the method, as taught by the combination of Meyers and Kim, for the benefits discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESHUI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30amp-4:00pm EST.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/LESHUI ZHANG/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2695