DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The present application is a continuation of Application No. 16/579,693 (U.S. Patent 12,039,974), which is a continuation of Application No. 14/804,787 (U.S. Patent 10,424,293).
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if the Double Patenting and 35 USC § 112 rejections recited below were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention teaches an interactive content service that receives a first audio input request to display a first visual image of a first portion of content along with a second visual image of a second portion of content on one or more output devices and in response, sends data associated with the first visual image and the second visual image to one or more computing devices to be displayed on the one or more output devices. The closest prior art fails to explicitly teach the combination of all of the limitations recited in the independent claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to explicitly teach the limitations “receiving a second audio input request to visually modify, via the one or more output devices, a first characteristic of the first visual image and a second characteristic of the second visual image; and based at least in part on the second audio input request, visually modifying the first characteristic, and refraining from visually modifying the second characteristic” (i.e., in response to a second audio input request to visually modify, via the one or more output devices, a first characteristic of the first visual image of the first portion of the content and a second characteristic of the second visual image of the second portion of content displayed along with the first visual image, only visually modifying the first characteristic and refraining from visually modifying the second characteristic) when combined with the other recited limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious all of the recited limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,974 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”), in view of Nenov et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0177477 (hereinafter “Nenov”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Instant Application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Reference Patent, in view of Nenov.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Reference Patent, in view of Nenov. Please see the table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 1 of the Reference Patent correspond to the limitations of claim 1 of the Instant Application:
Instant Application
18/767,791
Reference Patent
12,039,974
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a first audio input request to display, via one or more output devices, a first visual image of a first portion of content along with a second visual image of a second portion of the content;
sending, to one or more computing devices, data associated with the first visual image and the second visual image to be displayed via the one or more output devices;
receiving a second audio input request to visually modify, via the one or more output devices, a first characteristic of the first visual image and a second characteristic of the second visual image; and
based at least in part on the second audio input request, visually modifying the first characteristic, and refraining from visually modifying the second characteristic.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a speech processing system, a first audio input request to display a first visual image of a first portion of content on one or more output devices;
sending first data to one or more computing devices that are remote from the speech processing system, wherein the first data indicates the first visual image of the first portion of the content to be displayed on the one or more output devices;
receiving a second audio input request for a second visual image of a second portion of the content to be displayed along with the first visual image of the first portion of the content on the one or more output devices;
sending second data to the one or more computing devices, wherein the second data indicates the second visual image of the second portion of the content to be displayed on the one or more output devices along with the first visual image of the first portion of the content;
receiving a third audio input request to visually modify a first characteristic of the first visual image of the first portion of the content being displayed along with a second characteristic of the second visual image of the second portion of the content on the one or more output devices; and
based at least in part on the third audio input request, visually modifying, at the speech processing system, the first characteristic of the first visual image of the first portion of the content being displayed, and refraining from visually modifying the second characteristic of the second visual image of the second portion of the content being displayed.
The Reference Patent does not explicitly teach that the audio input request to display the first visual image and the second visual image along with the first visual image is a single audio input request. Instead, the Reference Patent teaches two audio input requests, i.e. a first audio input request to display the first visual image and a second audio input request to display the second visual image along with the first visual image. Similar to the Instant Application and the Reference Patent, Nenov also teaches displaying, via one or more output devices, a first visual image of a first portion of content along with a second visual image of a second portion of the content in response to receiving an audio input request (receiving a voice command from the user to open a dashboard including a plurality of windows) (Nenov: paragraphs [0008], [0046] and [0166]). In addition, Nenov teaches that the audio input request is a single audio input request (a voice command to open a dashboard results in opening a plurality of windows within the dashboard) (Nenov: paragraphs [0008], [0046] and [0166]). Because both the Reference Patent and Nenov teach receiving audio input request(s) to display a first visual image and a second visual image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second audio input requests taught by the Reference Patent with a single first audio input request taught by Nenov. This substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing both the first visual image and the second visual image to be displayed in response to a single audio input request, thereby saving the user time.
Claims 2 and 13 of the Instant Application: please see claims 2 and 13 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 3 of the Instant Application: please see claim 2 of the Reference Patent.
Claims 4 and 14 of the Instant Application: please see claims 3 and 14 of the Reference Patent.
Claims 5 and 15 of the Instant Application: please see claims 4 and 15 of the Reference Patent.
Claims 6 and 16 of the Instant Application: please see claims 5 and 16 of the Reference Patent.
Claims 7 and 17 of the Instant Application: please see claims 6 and 17 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 8 of the Instant Application: please see claim 7 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 9 of the Instant Application: please see claim 8 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 10 of the Instant Application: please see claim 9 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 11 of the Instant Application: please see claim 10 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 12 of the Instant Application recites a system embodiment with limitations that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 1 of the Instant Application. Claim 12 of the Reference Patent recites a system embodiment with limitations that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 1 of the Reference Patent. Therefore, claim 12 of the Instant Application is mapped to claim 12 of the Reference Patent in view of Nenov in a similar way as recited above with respect to claim 1 of the Instant Application.
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,974 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Instant Application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Reference Patent.
Claim 18 of the Instant Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Reference Patent. Please see the table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 1 of the Reference Patent correspond to the limitations of claim 18 of the Instant Application:
Instant Application
18/767,791
Reference Patent
12,039,974
18. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a first audio input request to display, via one or more output devices, a visual image of a portion of content;
receiving a second audio input request to visually modify, via the one or more output devices, a characteristic of the visual image; and
based at least in part on the second audio input request, visually modifying the characteristic.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a speech processing system, a first audio input request to display a first visual image of a first portion of content on one or more output devices;
sending first data to one or more computing devices that are remote from the speech processing system, wherein the first data indicates the first visual image of the first portion of the content to be displayed on the one or more output devices;
receiving a second audio input request for a second visual image of a second portion of the content to be displayed along with the first visual image of the first portion of the content on the one or more output devices;
sending second data to the one or more computing devices, wherein the second data indicates the second visual image of the second portion of the content to be displayed on the one or more output devices along with the first visual image of the first portion of the content;
receiving a third audio input request to visually modify a first characteristic of the first visual image of the first portion of the content being displayed along with a second characteristic of the second visual image of the second portion of the content on the one or more output devices; and
based at least in part on the third audio input request, visually modifying, at the speech processing system, the first characteristic of the first visual image of the first portion of the content being displayed, and refraining from visually modifying the second characteristic of the second visual image of the second portion of the content being displayed.
Claim 19 of the Instant Application: please see claim 2 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 20 of the Instant Application: please see claim 7 of the Reference Patent.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more computing devices" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests that the limitation be changed to “the one or more first computing devices”.
Claim 13 depends upon claim 12 and therefore inherits the above deficiency.
Claims 14-17 each recite the limitation "the one or more computing devices" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests that the limitation be changed to “the one or more first computing devices”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nenov et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0177477 (hereinafter “Nenov”).
Referring to claim 18, Nenov teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving first audio input request to display, via one or more output devices, a visual image of a portion of content (receiving a voice command to open/display a new modality on the dashboard) (paragraphs [0008] and [0093]-[0094]);
receiving a second audio input request to visually modify, via the one or more output devices, a characteristic of the visual image (a user input voice command to modify the layout and/or content displayed on the dashboard; for example, a voice command to zoom the displayed image) (paragraphs [0112]-[0113]); and
based at least in part on the second audio input request, visually modifying the characteristic (modify the layout and/or content displayed on the dashboard based on the user input voice command; for example, the voice command to zoom can visually modify the displayed image by making the image bigger) (paragraphs [0112]-[0113]).
Referring to claim 19, Nenov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising selecting the one or more output devices from one or more of a display or a speaker (the output device includes a display such as the display shown in Figure 2) (paragraphs [0053] and [0176]).
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nenov et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0177477 (hereinafter “Nenov”), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hart et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0278438 (hereinafter “Hart”).
Referring to claim 20, Nenov teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 18 above. However, Nenov fails to explicitly teach selecting the one or more output devices based at least in part on a location of a user that provided the first audio input request. Similar to Nenov, Hart also teaches a method that receives a first audio input request to display, via one or more output devices, a visual image of a portion of content (a device 106 can receive a voice command from the user to display, via output device 130, a visual image of a description of Benjamin Franklin) (Hart: paragraphs [0003], [0012]-[0013] and [0029]-[0030]; this is further shown in Figures 1 and 3C). In addition, Hart teaches selecting one or more output devices based at least in part on a location of a user that provided the first audio input request (identify a device that is within a threshold distance of the user) (Hart: paragraphs [0031] and [0050]; this is further shown in Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nenov’s teaching of displaying a requested visual image of a portion of content via one or more output devices to include selecting the one or more output devices based at least in part on a location of a user that provided the audio request, as taught by Hart. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow the user to receive information at a device that is proximate to the user within his environment (Hart: paragraph [0003], [0012], [0031] and [0034]).
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. The documents cited therein teach similar methods of displaying content via one or more output devices in response to receiving an audio input request.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (57. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights