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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception such as a natural phenomenon, abstract idea, or law of nature, without significantly more and/or a practical application per se, specifically with one or more of:
1) Not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application (see explanation below), and
2) Not reciting elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see explanation below).
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The independent claims:
When taking the current claim limitations of the present invention, we see that they are directed to distinguishing identifying information from a user speaking using past history, and suggesting modification for the user’s input.
Regarding the claim limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 as recited:
a voice input unit configured to separate a user utterance from noise and to convert the user utterance into a text to generate content of the user utterance; a voice recognition unit configured to extract and classify, from the content of the user utterance, call words information, domain information, end service name information, and operations information; a classified information storage unit configured to store and manage the call words information, the domain information, the end service name information, and the operations information; a command correction unit configured to correct a user command to generate a corrected user command, in response to the content of the user utterance not including at least one or more of the call words information, the domain information, the end service name information, and the operations information; a speech conversion unit configured to convert the corrected user command into a voice command; a response generation unit configured to generate a response information by using the corrected user command; and a history storage unit configured to store a user’s usage history of the voice recognition service.
Step 1: IS THE CLAIM DIRECTED TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
Yes
Step 2A.1: IS THE CLAIM DIRECTED TO A LAW OF NATURE, A NATURAL PHENOMENON (PRODUCT OF NATURE) OR AN ABSTRACT IDEA?
Yes
Step 2A.2: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
No. Regarding the independent claims. No, analogous to Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims are directed to distinguishing identifying information from a user speaking using past history, and suggesting modification for the user’s input, such as lacking a clear improvement of function/technology in the realm of intent extraction during a conversation.
Further as demonstrated in Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited. In part one of the Alice/Mayo test, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of crediting the merchant’s account before the paper check is scanned. The court first determined that the recited limitations of “crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check” is a “long-standing commercial practice” like in Alice and Bilski. 931 F.3d at 1167, 2019 USPQ2d 281076, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test finding that the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id.
Regarding the December 5th 2025 Memo in light of September 26, 2025 Appeals Review Panel Decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 for Application 16/319,040, in deciding if a recited abstract idea does or does not direct the entire claim to an abstract idea, when a claim is considered as a whole.
The claim which demonstrated improvements to technology and/or function recites: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task.".
The decision recites that “We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation.”
When considering the limitation decided upon, there are clear improvements to machine learning that are not rudimentary or a long-standing practice, for instance adjusting for optimization and protection of performance, as claimed, are improvements to a machine learning models operations, not simply a general mathematical or generic recitation, but rather an improvement to function.
Specifically, Ex Parte Desjardins explained the following:
Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that “[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.” 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,” the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether “the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 1336. (Desjardins, page 8).
Further, specifically:
“Paragraph 21 of the Specification, which the Appellant cites, identifies improvements in training the machine learning model itself. Of course, such an assertion in the Specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligibility determination, absent a subsequent determination that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, however, we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement. For example, one improvement identified in the 8 Appeal2024-000567 Application 16/319,040 Specification is to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Spec. ,r 21. The Specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." Id. When evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation. Under a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel below is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing § 101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake. Categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology. Yet, under the panel's reasoning, many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious-because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation. Dec. 24. Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.”
Further in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were
The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
The second paragraph of MPEP § 2106.05(a), subsection I, is revised to add new examples xiii and xiv to the list of examples that may show an improvement in computer functionality:
xiii. An improved way of training a machine learning model that protected the model’s knowledge about previous tasks while allowing it to effectively learn new tasks; Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential); and
xiv. Improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with tasks or workstreams; Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential).
Step 2B: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION?
No. The claims amount to distinguishing identifying information from a user speaking using past history and suggesting modification for the user’s input. Such methods are not significant per se, and the use of hardware in light of the operations themselves are extra solution activity. For instance the human mind and ability to navigate a conversation to extract intent, and similarly using such spoken or obtained conversation information to pull up computer data on a system to present to the user is extra solution at best and can be operated independent of any electronic devices.
• Collecting and comparing known information (Classen)
• Collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial)
• Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group; West View†)
• Comparing data to determine a risk level (Perkin‐Elmer)†
• Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC)
• Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (Smartgene)†
• Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction)
Assistance for Applicant in amending to overcome 101:
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
To help in amending the claims and for analysis purposes, example claims 3 and 4 are listed below from the courts, however such example amendment potentials are not limited to the provided examples and alternative amendments are possible using i-vi from the courts. The example below show differences between eligible claims (court claim 4) and ineligible claims (court claim 3), which thus illustrates significantly more which is tied to hardware that is not generally recited in the art. In this case general changing of font size in claim 3 versus a significant step of conditionally changing font size tied to hardware in claim 4.
See below examples based on MPEP and not on the current claim set, to help amend to overcome 101 rejections:
Regarding independent claim examples:
For instance in the example claims, for example claims 3 and 4 below:
Ineligible
3. A computer‐implemented method of resizing textual information within a window displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
(not significant) generating first data for describing the area of a first graphical element;
(not significant) generating second data for describing the area of a second graphical element containing textual information;
(not significant) calculating, by the computer, a scaling factor for the textual information which is proportional to the difference between the first data and second data.
The claim recites that the step of calculating a scaling factor is performed by “the computer” (referencing the computer recited in the preamble). Such a limitation gives “life, meaning and vitality” to the preamble and, therefore, the preamble is construed to further limit the claim. (See MPEP 2111.02.)
However, the mere recitation of “computer‐implemented” is akin to adding the words “apply it” in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such a limitation is not enough to qualify as significantly more. With regards to the graphical user interface limitation, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not significantly more. (See, e.g., Flook.)
Whereas in similar claim 4:
Eligible
4. A computer‐implemented method for dynamically relocating textual information within an underlying window displayed in a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
displaying a first window containing textual information in a first format within a graphical user interface on a computer screen;
displaying a second window within the graphical user interface;
constantly monitoring the boundaries of the first window and the second window to detect an overlap condition where the second window overlaps the first window such that the textual information in the first window is obscured from a user’s view;
determining the textual information would not be completely viewable if relocated to an unobstructed portion of the first window;
calculating a first measure of the area of the first window and a second measure of the area of the unobstructed portion of the first window;
calculating a scaling factor which is proportional to the difference between the first measure and the second measure;
scaling the textual information based upon the scaling factor;
(significant step) automatically relocating the scaled textual information, by a processor, to the unobscured portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so that the entire scaled textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user;
(significant step) automatically returning the relocated scaled textual information, by the processor, to the first format within the first window when the overlap condition no longer exists.
These limitations are not merely attempting to limit the mathematical algorithm to a particular technological environment. Instead, these claim limitations recite a specific application of the mathematical algorithm that improves the functioning of the basic display function of the computer itself. As discussed above, the scaling and relocating the textual information in overlapping windows improves the ability of the computer to display information and interact with the user.
The dependent claims are rejected as follows, for the same reasoning as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and not adding eligible subject matter to the respective parent claim.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are directed to further operations involving distinguishing identifying information from a user speaking using past history and suggesting modification for the user’s input which do not provide any further limitations that would not be a judicial exception. For instance, the dependent claims amount to either classification and alteration of user intent or moving data from one source to another such as copying data, as extra solution activity.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per the claims, the language “computer-readable medium”
do not place the claimed subject matter into statutory form. The specification fails to indicate any specific type of medium such as ROM, RAM, hard disk, or non-transitory, non-carrier or non-propagating forms of storage, and therefore the claimed subject matter necessarily includes non-statutory embodiments, for instance transitory media, propagating signal, or signal. Examiner suggests amending the claims to include non-transitory. Note that it is not sufficient to add "tangible" or “physical”, see In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) for instance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
NOTE: The claims are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The claim limitations, specifically claims 1-8, in question recite one or more of:
“classified information storage unit …”
“speech conversion unit …”
“response generation unit …”
“history storage unit …”
“natural language understanding unit …”
In the scope of software-hardware, such elements preceding “unit” provide structure that aligns with the courts and is analogous to BRI examples such as a “digital detector” in the scope of computing per se, and a “knife blade” unit for cutting, in the scope of non-computing technology. Specifically considering the following:
E. “Detector”
1. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
United States Patent 5,335,277 (“the ’277 patent”)
The claimed subject matter relates to an integrated system for communicating programming, e.g. electronically transmitted entertain, instruct or inform, including television, radio, broadcast print, etc. The relevant claim language of independent claim 44 of the ’277 patent is as follows:
“. . .a digital detector operatively connected to a mass medium receiver for detecting digital information in a mass medium transmission and transferring some of said detected information to a processor; . . .”
Issue: Does the claim limitation “digital detector” invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph?
Analysis: The claim limitation does not use “means for” language to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. To one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the term “detector” connotes or describes in general a structure. The claim term “digital detector” is subsequently modified by the functional language “for detecting.” The fact that the term “detector” does not suggest a precise physical structure would not result in 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph being invoked. The claim term “detector” is understood in the relevant prior art and defined in dictionaries as having a well known meaning in the electrical arts connotative of structure. Further, just because the claim term “detector” is a name for structure drawn from the function it performs, should not result in treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore the term “detector” is structural and not a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and simply a substitute for the term “means for.” Accordingly, the presence of a structural term combined with the absence of any “means for” language indicates that 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is not invoked.
Conclusion: 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is not invoked.
The above analysis is in accordance with MPEP 2181 I 8th Ed. Rev. 6., Sept 2007 Pages 2100-236, and further in view of the analytical framework of the 2011 Supplementary Guidelines to determine whether a limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
And additionally in view of the courts regarding “means” per se, the example of an Ink jet means for ink delivery modified by “ink jet” which is sufficient structure for achieving specified functions. If such elements e.g. unit, module, sensor, were recited on its own in the current claims, such interpretation would not be applicable, and instead a generic placeholder would be present, such as the sole mention of “device” or “apparatus” on its own would in fact invoke 112(f). In the case above, this is not reasonable for the field of software/hardware.
Such claims are believed to not exhibit:
1) a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and
2) “means” or “step”, and 2) usage of the word “means” or “step”.
Regarding claims 1-8:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“voice input unit…”.
“voice recognition unit …”
“command correction unit …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110054899 A1 Phillips; Michael S. et al. (hereinafter Phillips) in view of US 20220157307 A1 Hartung; Klaus et al. (hereinafter Hartung).
Re claim 1, Phillips teaches
1. An apparatus for providing a voice recognition service, comprising: (0059-0060 voice recognition)
a voice input unit configured to separate a user utterance from noise and to convert the user utterance into a text to generate content of the user utterance; (voice activity detection distinguished speech from non-speech which includes noise as non-speech 0062 and marking noise per se 0078-0079)
a voice recognition unit configured to extract and classify, from the content of the user utterance… domain information… and operations information; (when a user makes a request, the domain and context are extracted as well as operational or action words e.g. CALL Joseph the domain is calling and action is to make the call similarly PLAY a song by ARTIST, music is the domain and playing the song is the operation with sub-operation of ARTIST, however a user can generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052, relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060)
a classified information storage unit configured to store and manage the call words information, the domain information, the end service name information, and the operations information; (learning and storing… relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060…when a user makes a request, the domain and context are extracted as well as operational or action words e.g. CALL Joseph the domain is calling and action is to make the call similarly PLAY a song by ARTIST, music is the domain and playing the song is the operation with sub-operation of ARTIST, however a user can generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052)
a command correction unit configured to correct a user command to generate a corrected user command, in response to the content of the user utterance not including at least one or more of the call words information, the domain information, the end service name information, and the operations information; (disambiguation as correction to offer suggestions to clarify intent by narrowing missing information or alternative information as in fig. 7b)
a speech conversion unit configured to convert the corrected user command into a voice command; (make the correction actionable… disambiguation as correction to offer suggestions to clarify intent by narrowing missing information or alternative information as in fig. 7b)
a response generation unit configured to generate a response information by using the corrected user command; and (provide results for the user in the context requested e.g. playing a song but correcting it to output best response e.g. 0059-0060 ….and make the correction actionable… disambiguation as correction to offer suggestions to clarify intent by narrowing missing information or alternative information as in fig. 7b)
a history storage unit configured to store a user’s usage history of the voice recognition service. (a user can by profile 0117 and 0070, or generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052, relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060)
However, while Phillips teaches intent and disambiguation services, it fails to teach:
call words information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
end service name information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se.
Re claim 9, this claim has been rejected for teaching a broader, or narrower claim based on general inclusion of hardware alone (e.g. processor, memory, instructions), representation of claim 1 omitting/including hardware for instance, otherwise amounting to a virtually identical scope
Re claim 16, this claim has been rejected for teaching a broader, or narrower claim based on general inclusion of hardware alone (e.g. processor, memory, instructions), representation of claim 1 omitting/including hardware for instance, otherwise amounting to a virtually identical scope
Re claim 2, Phillips teaches
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the voice recognition unit comprises a natural language understanding unit configured to classify intention of the user utterance, by using a natural language understanding engine. (when a user makes a request, the domain and context are extracted as well as operational or action words e.g. CALL Joseph the domain is calling and action is to make the call similarly PLAY a song by ARTIST, music is the domain and playing the song is the operation with sub-operation of ARTIST, however a user can generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052, relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060)
However, while Phillips teaches intent and disambiguation services, it fails to teach:
call words information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
end service name information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se.
Re claims 3 and 11, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060) it fails to teach call and end service information per se:
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the command correction unit is further configured to determine the end service name information by using an end service usage history of an end service, in response to the content of the user utterance including the call words information but not including the end service name information. (Hartung custom or service call word can be used 0107, analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se, and similarly the user’s input can be partial such as “Play song XYZ” when the user is already operating in an end service “Spotify” for instance is implied but can be clarified and corrected using Phillips disambiguation e.g. “Did you mean “Amazon music” or “Spotify”?, thereby improving disambiguation if a service is unavailable.
Re claims 4 and 12, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060), it fails to teach call and end service information per se:
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the command correction unit is further configured to determine the call words information by using a voice assistant usage history of a voice assistant, in response to the content of the user utterance not including the call words information but including the end service name information. (Hartung custom or service call word can be used 0107, analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se, and similarly the user’s input can be partial such as “Play song XYZ” when the user is already operating in an end service “Spotify” for instance is implied but can be clarified and corrected using Phillips disambiguation e.g. “Did you mean “Amazon music” or “Spotify”?, thereby improving disambiguation if a service is unavailable, and further similarly “Spotify” spoken solely and the system may respond with disambiguation “Would you like to play a song” etc.
Re claims 5 and 13, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060), it fails to teach call and end service information per se:
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the command correction unit is further configured to determine the call words information and the end service name information by using a voice assistant usage history of a voice assistant, an end service usage history of an end service, and a recently utilized service usage history of a recently utilized service, in response to the content of the user utterance not including the call words information and the end service name information. (Hartung custom or service call word can be used 0107, analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se, and similarly the user’s input can be partial such as “Play song XYZ” when the user is already operating in an end service “Spotify” for instance is implied but can be clarified and corrected using Phillips disambiguation e.g. “Did you mean “Amazon music” or “Spotify”?, thereby improving disambiguation if a service is unavailable, and further similarly “Spotify” spoken solely and the system may respond with disambiguation “Would you like to play a song” etc., and furthermore a user may simply speak “Play a song XYZ” as demonstrated in Phillips, in which the system of Hartung can run through various services which would inherently become part of the user history according to Phillips in the context of user intent extraction applied with Hartung End and Call operations in or out of context or structured input.
Re claims 6 and 14, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060), it fails to teach call and end service information per se:
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the command correction unit is further configured to determine the call words information and the end service name information by using an end service based on the domain information, in response to the content of the user utterance including the domain information not being supported by an invoked voice assistant. (Hartung custom or service call word can be used 0107, analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se, and similarly the user’s input can be partial such as “Play song XYZ” when the user is already operating in an end service “Spotify” for instance is implied but can be clarified and corrected using Phillips disambiguation e.g. “Did you mean “Amazon music” or “Spotify”?, thereby improving disambiguation if a service is unavailable, and further similarly “Spotify” spoken solely and the system may respond with disambiguation “Would you like to play a song” etc., and furthermore a user may simply speak “Play a song XYZ” as demonstrated in Phillips, in which the system of Hartung can run through various services which would inherently become part of the user history according to Phillips in the context of user intent extraction applied with Hartung End and Call operations in or out of context or structured input.
Re claims 7 and 15, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060), it fails to teach call and end service information per se:
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the command correction unit is further configured to determine the call words information and the end service name information by using a first activated voice assistant, in response to the content of the user utterance including the domain information that has no usage history. (Hartung “services unavailable” for instance 0120-0122 or a user can operate without a profile per se or account or history per se… custom or service call word can be used 0107, analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se, and similarly the user’s input can be partial such as “Play song XYZ” when the user is already operating in an end service “Spotify” for instance is implied but can be clarified and corrected using Phillips disambiguation e.g. “Did you mean “Amazon music” or “Spotify”?, thereby improving disambiguation if a service is unavailable, and further similarly “Spotify” spoken solely and the system may respond with disambiguation “Would you like to play a song” etc., and furthermore a user may simply speak “Play a song XYZ” as demonstrated in Phillips, in which the system of Hartung can run through various services which would inherently become part of the user history according to Phillips in the context of user intent extraction applied with Hartung End and Call operations in or out of context or structured input.
Re claim 8, Phillips teaches
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the history storage unit is further configured to store the user’s usage history by using a source database and a database virtual copy, wherein the source database stores all existing usage histories, and wherein the database virtual copy is a copy of the source database. (0061 making an external copy or local copy thereof i.e. the same content in two locations… when a user makes a request, the domain and context are extracted as well as operational or action words e.g. CALL Joseph the domain is calling and action is to make the call similarly PLAY a song by ARTIST, music is the domain and playing the song is the operation with sub-operation of ARTIST, however a user can generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052, relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060)
Re claim 10, while Phillips teaches intent extraction and context awareness with usage history (0059-0060), it fails to tech call and end service information per se:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the extracting of call words information, domain information, end service name information, and operations information comprises classifying intention of the user utterance, by using a natural language understanding engine to extract the call words information, domain information, end service name information, and operations information. (excluding “call words” and “end service name”, Phillips teaches when a user makes a request, the domain and context are extracted as well as operational or action words e.g. CALL Joseph the domain is calling and action is to make the call similarly PLAY a song by ARTIST, music is the domain and playing the song is the operation with sub-operation of ARTIST, however a user can generically invoke an app e.g. Send SMS or Play song to open an application 0052, relying upon user history, learned information which is stored, relying upon natural language understanding such as language model use, and applicable to other domains like browsing, SMS, Navigation, etc. 0059-0060)
However, while Phillips teaches intent and disambiguation services, it fails to teach:
call words information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
end service name information (Hartung analogous to operations as in 0124, end services and call words specific thereof are taught e.g. “Alexa play a song” which invokes Alexa but if the user has Spotify open the user can play music through Spotify in the context of an Alexa device without music play options for instance, or if a user says “Okay computer, play song” the system can call “computer” and use Amazon or another service such as Spotify, etc. to play the song 0022 0113-0115 0139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Phillips to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Hartung to allow for a simple substitution of one known intent category for another to obtain predictable results, such as using a service to identify an app intent and a call to identify the service or computer, which improves processing time by eliminating the need for disambiguation when a user speaks with clarifying commands e.g. “Okay computer, play song X in Spotify”, where follow up questions are minimized, in combination with using the user history and profile as taught in Phillips such that the intent is clear, wherein the users request can be processed with or without a history of communication or without being available in a service, as the system of Hartung can switch services when data is unavailable in a service independent of a user profile per se.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190095428 A1 Asano; Yu et al.
ASR context
US 20170371861 A1 Barborak; Mike et al.
Intent extraction
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C COLUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-1847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL COLUCCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 (571)-270-1847
Examiner FAX: (571)-270-2847
Michael.Colucci@uspto.gov