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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9-10, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20210210073), hereinafter referred to as Shin, in view of Kim et al. (US 20160077794), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Re claim 1 and 15, Shin teaches an appliance (e.g. refrigerator 1200), the appliance comprising:
a cabinet (see Fig 12);
a microphone (e.g. 122) mounted to the cabinet (e.g. ¶ 184, “the artificial intelligence device 100 is a refrigerator” … ¶ 34, “The artificial intelligence device 100 may include a wireless communication unit 110, an input unit 120” … ¶ 42, “The input unit 120 may include a camera 121 for receiving a video signal, a microphone 122”; thus the examiner notes that is inherent that the microphone is mounted in the cabinet); and
a controller (e.g. 100) in operative communication with the microphone, the controller being configured to:
obtaining a sound signal (e.g. ¶ 256, “In this situation, the user speaks a speech command 1210 <hilg open the door>”) using the microphone;
analyzing the sound signal to identify a voice input including a request for a responsive action (e.g. ¶ 257, “<open the door>”);
determining an action confidence metric (confidence metric are considered to be steps 503, 505, 507; see also ¶ 256-262, “the basic wake-up word <hilg>” … “the additional wake-up word recognition situation” … “the proximity sensor” and “upon determining that the user is detected based on an image captured by a camera provided in the refrigerator, the refrigerator may determine that the current situation is the additional wake-up word recognition situation”) regarding performance of the responsive action (i.e. opening the door);
determining that the action confidence metric is satisfied (yes to steps 503, 505, 507, see ¶ 256-262)
determining that the responsive action to the voice input is needed based on the action confidence metric satisfied (e.g. ¶ 262, “When the current situation is the additional wake-up word recognition situation, the refrigerator may perform operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word recognition situation. That is, the refrigerator may automatically open the door of the refrigerator as operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word <open the door>”)
performing the responsive action (e.g. ¶ 262, “When the current situation is the additional wake-up word recognition situation, the refrigerator may perform operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word recognition situation. That is, the refrigerator may automatically open the door of the refrigerator as operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word <open the door>”).
Shin does not teach the limitation of the confidence metric exceeding a predetermined action threshold.
However, Kim teaches a voice command system comprising a confidence metric exceeding a predetermined action threshold (e.g. ¶ 46, “At decision block 308, a determination can be made as to whether the confidence level determined at block 306 exceeds a threshold. In one example, a speech trigger confidence level threshold can be predetermined above which corresponding actions can be initiated, but below which corresponding actions may not be initiated. Such a threshold can, for example, be determined empirically, set by a user preference, or the like”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shin and integrate the confidence metric exceeding a predetermined action threshold, as taught by Kim, in order to have a threshold can be dynamically adjusted based on a variety of perceived events and circumstances (see Kim ¶ 46).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 2 and 16, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 and the appliance of claim 15. Shin further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the voice input contains a wake word (¶ 256-262, “the basic wake-up word <hilg>”) for the appliance, increase the action confidence metric (the examiner notes that according to step 503 if no then the process returns, thus if yes it increases the confidence metric).
Re claim 3 and 17, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 and the appliance of claim 15. Shin further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the voice input contains a request to perform a common appliance function (¶ 256-262, “The refrigerator may determine whether the remaining command <open the door> corresponds to the additional wake-up word”); and increase the action confidence metric (the examiner notes that according to step 505/507 if no then the process returns, thus if yes it increases the confidence metric).
Re claim 4, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1. Shin further teaches the limitation of wherein the appliance is a refrigerator appliance (1200) and the common appliance function is dispenser operations (¶ 262, “That is, the refrigerator may automatically open the door of the refrigerator as operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word <open the door>”).
Re claim 8 and 20, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 and the appliance of claim 15. Kim further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the action confidence metric falls below the predetermined action threshold (see step 308 when No); and determine that the responsive action to the voice input is not needed based on the action confidence metric falling below the predetermined action threshold (the process returns without performing the command at 310; see Fig 3).
Re claim 9, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1. Shin further teaches the limitation of wherein the responsive action comprises at least one of performing an appliance function (¶ 262, “That is, the refrigerator may automatically open the door of the refrigerator as operation corresponding to the additional wake-up word <open the door>”).
Re claim 10, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1. Shin further teaches the limitation of analyzing the voice input using a machine learning model (100: “artificial intelligence”; ¶ 56, “Information stored in the learning processor 130 may be used by one or more other controllers of the artificial intelligence device or the processor 180 using any one of different types of data analysis algorithms and machine learning algorithms”) to identify the responsive action (¶ 46 and 131, “The processed audio data may be variously used according to function (application program) executed in the artificial intelligence device 100” … “The audio processor 181 may recognize a wake-up word for activating speech recognition of the artificial intelligence device 100. The audio processor 181 may convert the wake-up word received through the microphone 122”).
Re claim 14, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1. Shin further teaches the limitation of further comprising: providing a user notification regarding performance of the responsive action, wherein providing the user notification comprises converting a textual response to a verbal response using a text-to-speech algorithm (e.g. ¶ 216, “For example, when the artificial intelligence device 100 is a TV and the operation command is <what time is now>, the processor 180 may output a current time through the display 151 or the sound output unit 152”).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, in view of Kim, Woo et al. (US 20190066680), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Re claim 5 and 18, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 and the appliance of claim 15. Shin, as modified, does not teach the limitation of further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the voice input is received while the appliance is in a conversational state of operation; and increase the action confidence metric.
However, Woo teaches a voice recognition and command system comprising a controller configured to: determine that a voice input (see step 717 coming after 303) is received while the appliance is in a conversational state of operation (see step 303); and increase the action confidence metric (the examiner notes that if step 717 is yes then the task from the input voice is performed, thus it increases an action confidence).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shin, as modified, and integrated wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the voice input is received while the appliance is in a conversational state of operation; and increase the action confidence metric, as taught by Woo, in order to improve users experience (see Woo ¶ 11).
Re claim 6 and 19, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 5 and the appliance of claim 18. Woo teaches the limitation of further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: exiting the conversational state of operation after a predetermined amount of time has passed since obtaining the sound signal (see e.g. step 703 to 705).
Re claim 7, Shin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 6. Woo teaches the limitation of wherein the predetermined amount of time is between 5 and 30 seconds (see e.g. ¶ 125, “At step 703, the processor may determine whether the activation standby time expires. When the activation standby time is 5 seconds”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 04/02/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763