CTNF 18/754,780 CTNF 101542 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. 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 mental process without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a computer-implemented method and a system that that, as drafted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers receiving first audio data representing an utterance detected by a first device (a person can listen to a spoken utterance and write down or mentally note what was said using a generic computer component like a laptop microphone) ; determining that the first audio data represents a communication that is intended for a recipient (a person can listen to audio and determine whether or not it is meant for recipient mentally or with a pen and paper) ; generating first communication data corresponding to the communication (a person can write down transcribe or formulate communication with a pen and paper or mentally) ; processing input data to determine, from a plurality of user accounts, a first user account associated with a speaker of the utterance (a person can consider available identifying information and decide which user account corresponds to the speaker either mentally or with a pen and paper) ; based at least in part on determination of the first user account associated with the speaker of the utterance, selecting the first user account to associate with metadata indicating a sender of the communication (A person can label the communication with the chosen sender identity either mentally or with a pen and paper using previously written/heard determination and metadata) ; and causing the first communication data and the metadata to be sent to at least one second device associated with the recipient (A person can give the first communication data and metadata via word of mouth speaking to another person or another person’s microphone) . As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a first device, second device, and system comprising of a computer processor and memory, which is general purpose hardware such as generic computer components being used as a tool to implement the mental process. This claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are a system comprising of a computer processor and memory, which is general purpose hardware being used as a tool to implement the mental process, and a first and second device that is also essentially conventional components that utilizes the basic functions of a computer such as a microphone. The remaining dependent claims fail to add patent eligible subject matter to independent claim 1: Claims 2 and 12 simply add that the input data comprises at least a portion of first audio data which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by using part of the heard utterance as input for determining identity or sender information. Claims 3 and 13 simply add that the input data comprises image data captured by at least one camera of the first device, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by observing a person visually and using tat observation as input. Claims 4 and 14 simply add that the input data comprises image data captured by at least one camera of the first device, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by observing a person visually and using that observation as input. Claims 5 and 15 simply add that processing the input data comprises performing user recognition processing, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by recognizing who a person is from available information. Claims 6 and 16 simply add that processing the input data comprises performing computer vision processing, which in substance is merely using visual information from an image to evaluate identity or related information, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by visually analyzing the observed person. Claims 7 and 17 simply add that processing the input data comprises performing speaker identification, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by recognizing who is speaking from the speaker’s voice. Claims 8 and 18 simply add that the input data comprises audio and image data which a person can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by considering both what is heard and seen. Claims 9 and 19 s imply add that the input data comprises presence data, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by noticing whether another person or device is present nearby. Claims 10 and 20 simply add that determining that presence data indicates a second device is proximate to the first device and determining the second device is associated with the first user account, which a human can do mentally and/or with a pen and paper by observing that a nearby device is close to another device and deciding that the nearby device belongs to the identified user account. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennewick et al. (hereinafter Kennewick) (US 20080235023 A1) in view of Kashtan et al. (hereinafter Kashtan) (US 20160275952 A1) Regarding claim 1, Kennewick discloses: receiving first audio data representing an utterance detected by a first device (Kennewick, P[0010]: "the system comprises a speech unit interface device that receives spoken natural language queries, commands and/or other utterances from a user", P[0086]: "The speech unit 128 includes one or more microphones, for example array microphone 134, to receive the utterances of the user." (reads on receiving first audio data representing an utterance detected by a first device because Kennewick's speech unit/microphone receives spoken utterances form the user.)) ; determining that the first audio data represents (Kennewick, P[0016]: "the system may process and respond to both questions or queries and commands." (reads on determining what the first audio data/utterance represents.) a communication that is intended for a recipient ( P[0049]: "automatic telephone dialing, reading and sending emails and pages by voice and other communications control functions", "checking voice mail messages, hearing and responding to email messages, and much more." (this reads on utterance representing a communication intended for a recipient because Kennewick teaches voice-controlled sending/responding to communications such as emails, pages, telephone dialing, and voicemail/email messaging.)); generating first communication data corresponding to the communication (Kennewick, P[0185]: "After the action[s] have been performed, a response, if need be, may be generated and forwarded to the user and/or third parties at 312." (reads on generating first communication data corresponding to the communication because Kennewick generates a response/message that may be forwarded to a user and/or third parties.)) ; processing input data to determine, from a plurality of user accounts (Kennewick, P[0029]: "the system may create, store and use extensive personal profile information for each user. " (reads on plurality of user accounts/profiles) , a first user account associated with a speaker of the utterance (Kennewick, P[0147]: "The speech recognition engine 120 may determine the user's identity by voice and name for each utterance." (reads on determining first user identity/account associated with speaker of the utterance)) ; based at least in part on determination of the first user account associated with the speaker of the utterance (Kennewick, P[0045]: "Once the user is recognized, the system invokes the correct profile." (reads on using the determined user/profile after determining the speaker/user identity)) , selecting the first user account to associate with metadata indicating a sender of the communication (Kennewick, P[0147]: "Recognized words and phrases may be tagged with this identity in all further processing." (reads on associating the recognized words/phrases of the utterance with identity metadata))) ; and causing the first communication data (Kennewick, P[0185]: "After the action[s] have been performed, a response, if need be, may be generated and forwarded to the user and/or third parties at 312. " (reads on causing the generated communication/response data to be sent to a user and/or third party.)) Kennewick doesn’t explicitly disclose: A computer-implemented method, comprising: and the metadata to be sent to at least one second device associated with the recipient However, Kashtan discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising (Kashtan, P[0115]) : and the metadata to be sent to at least one second device associated with the recipient (Kashtan, Abstract: "communicate the metadata that identifies the current speaker to at least one of the client device of the observer or a client device of a different observer." (reads on sending speaker-identifying metadata to another/second client device.)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based natural language query, command, and response environment including determining user’s identity by voice for each utterance and tagging recognize words and phrases with that identity (Kennewick, P[0147]), with Kashtan’s automated speaker recognition by generating an audio fingerprint of current speaker and comparing the audio fingerprint against stored audio fingerprints (Kashtan, Abstract), thus improving speaker/sender identification and metadata associating for utterance-based communications. Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kashtan further discloses: wherein the input data comprises at least a portion of the first audio data ( Kashtan, Abstract: "A computer system may communicate metadata that identifies a current speaker. The computer system may receive audio data that represents speech of the current speaker, generate an audio fingerprint of the current speaker based on the audio data, and perform automated speaker recognition by comparing the audio fingerprint of the current speaker against stored audio fingerprints contained in a speaker fingerprint repository." (reads on input data comprising at least a portion of the first audio data because Kashtan uses audio data representing the speaker's speech to generate an audio fingerprint for speaker recognition) Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Kennewick further discloses: wherein the portion comprises a wakeword (Kennewick, P[0148]: "A user may start a dialog with the system 90 when they first address it. This can be done by speaking a generic word ("computer") or addressing a specific name ("Fred"), which may be generally tied to a system personality 108." (further reads on the spoken addressing word initiating system recognition/processing.)) Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kashtan further discloses: wherein processing the input data comprises performing speaker identification (Kashtan, Abstract: "generate an audio fingerprint of the current speaker based on the audio data" (this is speaker identification input processing), Kashtan, Abstract: "perform automated speaker recognition by comparing the audio fingerprint of the current speaker against stored audio fingerprints" (teaches speaker identification)). Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 3 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 7 and is rejected under the same grounds as above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-6, 8, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennewick et al. (hereinafter Kennewick) (US 20080235023 A1) in view of Kashtan et al. (hereinafter Kashtan) (US 20160275952 A1) in further view of Gonion et al (hereinafter Gonion) (US 20140085191 A1) Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Kennewick and Kashtan does not disclose: wherein the input data comprises image data captured by at least one camera of the first device However, Gonion discloses: wherein the input data comprises image data captured by at least one camera of the first device (Gonion, P[0036]: "The personal computing device 100 may also include an image sensor 124 that enables the device 100 to capture an image or series of images (e.g., video)" (teaches image data captured by a camera/image sensor of the device), P[0036]: "The image sensor 124 may include a camera capable of capturing photographic images and/or video images" (teaches a camera capturing the image data)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Gonion. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker recognition with Gonion’s image sensor for capturing an image or series of images (Gonion, P[0036]) and recognition of an authorized user base don captured face data (Gonion, P[0016]), thus improving user identification and authentication using known image-based recognition in addition to voice-based recognition. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Kennewick and Kashtan does not disclose: wherein processing the input data comprises performing user recognition processing However, Gonion discloses: wherein processing the input data comprises performing user recognition processing (Gonion, Claim 39: "analyzing the acquired image to detect a particular face belonging to an authorized user" (teaches user recognition processing), Gonion, P[0016]: "recognizes at least one of faces as the face of the authorized user by comparing the one or faces with the data store" (teaches user recognition processing based on captured input data)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Gonion. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker recognition with Gonion’s image sensor for capturing an image or series of images (Gonion, P[0036]) and recognition of an authorized user base don captured face data (Gonion, P[0016]), thus improving user identification and authentication using known image-based recognition in addition to voice-based recognition. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Kennewick and Kashtan does not disclose: wherein processing the input data comprises performing computer vision processing However, Gonion discloses: wherein processing the input data comprises performing computer vision processing (Gonion, P[0010]: "detecting includes employing at least one of face detection, face recognition, object recognition, view-based recognition, computer vision, and machine learning." (teaches computer vision processing as part of processing the input data)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Gonion. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker recognition with Gonion’s image sensor for capturing an image or series of images (Gonion, P[0036]) and recognition of an authorized user base don captured face data (Gonion, P[0016]), thus improving user identification and authentication using known image-based recognition in addition to voice-based recognition. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kashtan further discloses: wherein the input data comprises audio data ( Kashtan, Abstract: "The computer system may receive audio data that represents speech of the current speaker" (this reads on input data comprising audio data)) Kashtan does not explicitly disclose: And image data; However, Gonion discloses: and image data (Gonion, P[0036]: "may also include an image sensor 124 that enables the device 100 to capture an image or series of images" (image data input)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Gonion. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker recognition with Gonion’s image sensor for capturing an image or series of images (Gonion, P[0036]) and recognition of an authorized user base don captured face data (Gonion, P[0016]), thus improving user identification and authentication using known image-based recognition in addition to voice-based recognition. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 4 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 5 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 6 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 8 and is rejected under the same grounds as above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennewick et al. (hereinafter Kennewick) (US 20080235023 A1) in view of Kashtan et al. (hereinafter Kashtan) (US 20160275952 A1) in further view of Schilit et al. (hereinafter Schilit) (US 20170026812 A1) Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Kennewick and Kashtan does not explicitly disclose: wherein the input data comprises presence data; However, Schilit discloses: wherein the input data comprises presence data (Schilit, P[0022]: "When a user device travels within a threshold distance of the geographic location, the user device may provide user data to a remote computing device associated with the public device" (teaches presence/proximity data being used as input), Schilit, P[0049]: "the user device can detect a location of the public device relative to the user device" (reads on presence data)) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Schilit. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user-identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker identification with Schilit’s presence/proximity data, including providing user data when a user device is within a threshold distance of a public device (Schilit, P[0022]) and creating an interaction session when a user device is less than a threshold distance from a public device (Schilit , P[0048]), thus improving determination of which user device or user account is associated with the nearby speaker. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kennewick and Kashtan disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. The combination of Kennewick and Kashtan does not explicitly disclose: further comprising: determining the presence data indicates a second device is proximate to the first device; and determining the second device is associated with the first user account. However, Schilit discloses: further comprising: determining the presence data indicates a second device is proximate to the first device (Schilit, P[0048]: "an interaction session can be created when a user device is located less than a threshold distance from a public device." (teaches determining from presence data that a second device is proximate to first device/public device), P[0048]: "The distance between user 2 and display N is 2.5 meters" (ties proximity data to the device relationship)) ; and determining the second device is associated with the first user account (Schilit, P[0026]: "The user device may then identify the previously received cookie based on the beacon data, and provide the cookie to the server." (teaches associating proximate second device with a particular user/account identity), P[0026]: "The server can then identify the information associated with the user's previous interactions with the public device based on the cookie" (teaches determining that the second device is associated with the user account/profile)). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kennewick in view of Kashtan, and further in view of Schilit. Doing so would have provided Kennewick’s speech-based user-identity/profile processing and Kashtan’s speaker identification with Schilit’s presence/proximity data, including providing user data when a user device is within a threshold distance of a public device (Schilit, P[0022]) and creating an interaction session when a user device is less than a threshold distance from a public device (Schilit , P[0048]), thus improving determination of which user device or user account is associated with the nearby speaker. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 9 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the system corresponding to the computer-implemented method presented in claim 10 and is rejected under the same grounds as above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHASHIDHAR S MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6772. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00. 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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. /SHASHIDHAR SHANKAR MANOHARAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2655 /ANDREW C FLANDERS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 2 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 3 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 4 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 5 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 6 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 7 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 8 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 9 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 10 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 11 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 12 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 13 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 14 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/754,780 Page 15 Art Unit: 2655
Prosecution Insights