DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16 – 35 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 August 2024, 14 February 2025 and 11 December 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Instant claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims refer to an electronic device having a voice input interface for receiving a user voice, determining if the voice input includes a meaninglessly uttered voice or a predetermined word input, and if it does, outputting a representation of the other part of the voice input, and in the situation where the voice input is determined not to include the meaninglessly uttered voice or the predetermined word input, simply outputting a representation of the entire voice input. Further, the instant claim provides the receiving of the first information or the second information from a server, as well as the presentation of the information on a display. This is however taught by Wetjen et al. which provides speech recognition being performed at a server and a display of the transcript on the local device [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this reference, based on the predictable result of conserving processing power on a local device by performing the recognition task at a server, while also keeping the user informed of the utterances being made by presenting the transcript on a display.
Instant claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1.
Instant claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obviously unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,094,460 B2 in view of Wetjen et al. (US 2015/0106091 A1).
Instant claim
U.S. 12,094,460 B2
Claim 16
Claim 1
An electronic device, comprising:
a voice input interface;
a display;
a processor configured to:
receive a user voice input through the voice input interface,
An electronic device, comprising:
a display;
a voice input interface configured to receive a user voice input; and
a processor configured to:
receive the user voice input through the voice input interface,
based on a voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, being included in the user voice input, through a server, receive first information generated based on a remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and control the display to output the first information, and
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identify a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtain a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, perform a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and output a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input,
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
based on the voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, not being included in the user voice input, through the server, receive second information generated based on the entire user voice input, and control the display to output the second information.
based on the predetermined word input not being included in the user voice input according to the first speech recognition operation, obtain a second text corresponding to the user voice input, perform the function of the second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained second text and output a second result relating to the user voice input
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
Claim 18
Claim 1
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify the voice which is meaninglessly uttered in the user voice input, and
perform a function corresponding to voice recognition based on the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input.
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identify a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtain a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, perform a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and output a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input
Claim 21
Claim 3
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the first information or the second information received from the server being corresponding to an operation for controlling the electronic device, control the operation of the electronic device based the first information or the second information.
The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the first result or the second result.
Claim 22
Claim 1
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input, obtain a text converted from the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and control the display to output the converted text.
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identify a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtain a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, perform a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and output a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input
Claim 23
Claim 1
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input includes a first part and a second part, and wherein the voice which is meaninglessly uttered is input between the first part and the second part.
wherein the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input comprises a first part and a second part,
wherein the predetermined word input is between the first part and the second part
Claim 24
Claim 1
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first information and the second information are same information.
wherein the first result of performing the function of the speech recognition corresponding to the obtained first text is same as the second result of performing the function of the speech recognition based on the obtained second text
Claim 25
Claim 6
The electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the electronic device comprises a storage unit configured to store a first voice recognition module for recognizing user’s voice and a second voice recognition module for recognizing only predetermined voice in the user’s voice, and
wherein the processor is configured to:
identify whether the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input by using the second voice recognition module, and
recognize the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input by using the first voice recognition module.
The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to recognize the user voice input through a first speech recognition module and recognize the predetermined word input included in the user voice input through a second speech recognition module.
Claim 26
Claim 7
A controlling method of an electronic device, the controlling method comprising:
receiving a user voice input,
A speech recognition method of an electronic device, the speech recognition method comprising:
receiving a user voice input;
based on a voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, being included in the user voice input, through a server, receiving first information generated based on a remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and outputting the first information, and
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identifying a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtaining a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, performing a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and outputting a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input,
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
based on the voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, not being included in the user voice input, through the server, receiving second information generated based on the entire user voice input, and outputting the second information.
based on the predetermined word input not being included in the user voice input according to the first speech recognition operation, obtaining a second text corresponding to the user voice input, performing the function of the second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained second text and outputting a second result relating to the user voice input,
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
Claim 28
Claim 7
The controlling method as claimed in claim 26, further comprising: identifying the voice which is meaninglessly uttered in the user voice input, and performing a function corresponding to voice recognition based on the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input.
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identifying a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtaining a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, performing a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and outputting a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input
Claim 31
Claim 9
The controlling method as claimed in claim 26, wherein the controlling method further comprises:
based on the first information or the second information received from the server being corresponding to an operation for controlling the electronic device, controlling the operation of the electronic device based the first information or the second information.
The speech recognition method as claimed in claim 7, further comprising: controlling an operation of the electronic device based on the first result or the second result.
Claim 32
Claim 7
The controlling method as claimed in claim 26, wherein the outputting the first information comprises:
based on the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input, obtaining a text converted from the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and outputting the converted text.
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identifying a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtaining a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input included in the identified part, performing a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text, and outputting a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input
Claim 33
Claim 7
The controlling method as claimed in claim 26, wherein the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input includes a first part and a second part, and wherein the voice which is meaninglessly uttered is input between the first part and the second part.
wherein the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input comprises a first part and a second part,
wherein the predetermined word input is between the first part and the second part,
Claim 34
Claim 7
The controlling method as claimed in claim 26, wherein the first information and the second information are same information.
wherein the first result of performing the function of the speech recognition corresponding to the obtained first text is same as the second result of performing the function of the speech recognition based on the obtained second text.
Claim 35
Claim 13
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer instruction that, when executed by a processor of an electronic apparatus, causes the electronic apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a user voice input,
An electronic device, comprising:
a voice input interface configured to receive a user voice input
based on a voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, being included in the user voice input, through a server, receiving first information generated based on a remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and outputting the first information,
based on a predetermined word input being included in the user voice input according to a first speech recognition operation, identify a part of the user voice input in which the predetermined word input is included, obtain a first text corresponding to a part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input, control the display to display the first text, perform a function of a second speech recognition operation corresponding to the obtained first text and output a first result relating to the part of the user voice input excluding the predetermined word input,
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
based on the voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, not being included in the user voice input, through the server, receiving second information generated based on the entire user voice input, and outputting the second information.
based on the predetermined word input not being included in the user voice input according to the first speech recognition operation, obtain a second text corresponding to the user voice input, control the display to display the second text, perform the function of the second speech recognition corresponding to the obtained second text and output a second result relating to the user voice input,
wherein the predetermined word input includes a voice input which is meaninglessly uttered by a user
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the term “voice recognition” is misused for what nowadays is called --speech recognition-- in the speech signal processing art. While “voice recognition” and “speech recognition” were both once used interchangeably to refer to spoken word recognition, nowadays these two terms are distinguished. The term “voice recognition” now denotes identification of who is doing the speaking (CPC class G10L 17/00, USPC class 704/246), while “speech recognition” (or “word recognition”) denotes identification of what is being said (CPC class G10L 15/22, USPC class 704/251). So, appropriate correction to the proper terms of art is required.
The drawings of Figures 5 and 6(a) and 7 are objected to for minor informalities. The drawings are not clear enough to present the details of the claimed invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labelled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be cancelled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The Specification is objected to because the term “voice recognition” is misused for what nowadays is called --speech recognition-- in the speech signal processing art. While “voice recognition” and “speech recognition” were both once used interchangeably to refer to spoken word recognition, nowadays these two terms are distinguished. The term “voice recognition” now denotes identification of who is doing the speaking (CPC class G10L 17/00, USPC class 704/246), while “speech recognition” (or “word recognition”) denotes identification of what is being said (CPC class G10L 15/22, USPC class 704/251). So, appropriate correction to the proper terms of art is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 – 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to because the term “voice recognition” is misused for what nowadays is called --speech recognition-- in the speech signal processing art. While “voice recognition” and “speech recognition” were both once used interchangeably to refer to spoken word recognition, nowadays these two terms are distinguished. The term “voice recognition” now denotes identification of who is doing the speaking (CPC class G10L 17/00, USPC class 704/246), while “speech recognition” (or “word recognition”) denotes identification of what is being said (CPC class G10L 15/22, USPC class 704/251). So, appropriate correction to the proper terms of art is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 16, 26 and 35 provide teaching for receiving a speech input and determining if meaningless utterances are included in the received speech, so that, if the speech contains meaningless utterances, information of other parts of the speech absent the meaningless utterances are generated and displayed, and if the speech does not contain meaningless utterances, information of the speech are generated and displayed.
Nothing in the claims precludes them from being performed in the human mind. The entire process involves data gathering involving receiving the user voice input, data analysis involving the determination of meaninglessly uttered voice being included in the user voice input, data transformation involving the changing of the input voice from audio form into a form that can be displayed, and data presentation involving the output display of the determined first and second information. The entire process can be performed by a human who listens to a user utterance, determines if some meaningless utterances are present in the received utterance and if they are, writes out the transcript of the other section of the user utterance that does not include the meaningless utterance to obtain first text, but if meaningless utterances are not present, writes out the entire transcript of the user utterance to obtain second text, the transcription being performed at a different location, and then displays the text. The mentioning of the electronic device, voice input interface display, processor, and the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium simply serves as available hardware being applied to perform the claimed invention. The claims here recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claims simply teach of gathering data, analysing data, transforming data and presenting data.
The invention is not tied to any particular defining structure and simply provides instructions to apply the judicial exception. The techniques can be performed by a generic computer which would be presented as a tool to implement the abstract idea (classifiable as automation of a mental concept). The Specification in [160]–[161] provides computer parts and computer-execution, showing that this can be performed on a generic computer. The claims make mention of a voice input interface, a display and a processor, but these are also recited in generic terms, that any microphone, display or a computer processor would suitably address these components, which can be parts of a generic computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because the invention is not tied to a practical application.
The claims provide techniques that amount to no more than mere instructions that apply the judicial exception which can be performed by a generic device. Merely mentioning the electronic device, voice input interface display, processor, and the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium amounts to no more than a general-purpose hardware used as tools to implement the abstract idea and does not provide any particular application other than applying them for the purpose of implementing a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 16, 6 and 35 are not eligible.
Claims 17 and 27 provide that the meaningless utterances are indicative of a user considering what to say next during an utterance. This simply defines what the meaningless utterances is, but does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 18 and 28 provides an identification of the meaningless utterances in the user’s utterances, and then perform recognition on the remaining part of the utterances that isn’t meaninglessly uttered. A human may identify the meaningless utterances in a full utterance, and recognise the words of the remaining utterance. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 19 and 29 provide that the voice that based on the meaningless utterance being included in the user’s utterance, the user’s utterance only includes voice that corresponds to the user’s intention. A human could determine a user’s intention from an utterance that includes meaningless utterances. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 20 and 30 provide that based on meaningless utterances being included in the user utterance, performing a function corresponding to the user’s intention based on the rest of the user’s utterance absent the meaningless utterances, even if speech recognition wouldn’t be performed again. A human may perform an action based on the determined intent of a user’s utterance based on a determination that meaningless utterances are included in the user’s utterance. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 21 and 31 provide that based on the first and second information received from the server being determined to correspond to an operation for controlling an electronic device, controlling the operation of the electronic device based on the first or second information. A human may determine the recognised first or second text corresponding to a transcription of the user’s utterance, determine it is directed to a control operation, and performing the control operation. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 22 and 32 provide that based on the presence of the meaningless utterances in the user’s utterances, obtaining a converted text of the rest of the user’s utterance, and displaying the text. A human may transcribe the rest of the user’s utterance after considering the meaningless utterances, and then display the text of the user’s utterance. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 23 and 33 provide that the rest of the user’s utterance absent the meaningless utterances includes a first part and a second part, the meaningless utterance being between the first and the second parts. This merely provides a clarity on how the user’s utterance with the meaningless utterance is being presented but does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 24 and 34 provide that both the first information and the second information are the same information. After the meaningless utterances are removed from a user’s utterance, the rest of the user’s utterance would provide the same information. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claim 25 provides the device having a storage unit for storing a first voice recognition module which recognises the rest of the user’s speech without the meaningless utterances, and also storing a second voice recognition module which recognises the presence of the meaningless utterances in the user’s speech. A human may possess the knowledge to be able to separately and respectively identify and recognise meaningless utterances and the rest of the user’s utterance that is not meaninglessly uttered. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Itoh et al. (US 2002/0156627 A1: hereafter — Itoh) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2017/0236511 A1: hereafter — Zhao).
For claim 16, Itoh discloses an electronic device (Itoh: [0046] — an electronic device), comprising:
a voice input interface (Itoh: [0047] — a speech input device);
a processor (Itoh: [0046] — a CPU which can further include a microprocessor) configured to:
receive a user voice input through the voice input interface (Itoh: [0047] — receiving input speech),
based on a voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, being included in the user voice input, [[through a server,]] receive first information generated based on a remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and control the display to output the first information (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice), the transcript then being displayed on a display device (indicating that after the meaninglessly uttered voice is removed, the remaining utterance would constitute the first information)), and
based on the voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, not being included in the user voice input, [[through the server,]] receive second information generated based on the entire user voice input, and control the display to output the second information (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice), the transcript then being displayed on a display device (indicating that in the absence of disfluencies/meaninglessly uttered voice, the entire utterance would constitute the second information)).
The reference of Itoh provides teaching for generating a transcript from recognised speech in the presence of speech disfluencies, the disfluencies being removed from a display of the transcript. This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the speech recognition being performed at a server.
The reference of Zhao is now introduced to teach this as:
based on a voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, being included in the user voice input, through a server, receive first information generated based on a remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, and control the display to output the first information (Zhao: [0028] — processors within servers for performing speech recognition; [0040] — addressing speech input whether is includes disfluencies or not (the disfluencies being taken to indicate meaninglessly uttered voice)), and
based on the voice, which is meaninglessly uttered, not being included in the user voice input, through the server, receive second information generated based on the entire user voice input, and control the display to output the second information (Zhao: [0028] — processors within servers for performing speech recognition; [0040] — addressing speech input whether is includes disfluencies or not (the disfluencies being taken to indicate meaninglessly uttered voice)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Zhao which teaches of performing speech recognition at a server with the intent to be able to identify possible disfluencies, with the simple teaching of performing speech recognition as taught by Itoh, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of conserving energy at the operating device by transferring the speech recognition processing to the server instead of at the local device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 17, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the voice which is meaninglessly uttered is a voice which is meaninglessly uttered while a user is considering about what to say next during inputting a voice (Itoh: [0062] — considering <er> as a speech disfluency (this being known to be use when someone is thinking of the next thing to say)).
For claim 18, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify the voice which is meaninglessly uttered in the user voice input, and perform a function corresponding to voice recognition based on the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice and removed, so that the result of the speech recognition corresponds to that without the meaninglessly uttered voice)).
For claim 22, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input, obtain a text converted from the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice), the transcript then being displayed on a display device), and
control the display to output the converted text (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice), the transcript then being displayed on a display device).
For claim 23, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao discloses the electronic device, wherein the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input includes a first part and a second part, and wherein the voice which is meaninglessly uttered is input between the first part and the second part (Itoh: [0104] — having the disfluency of <uh> being between a first part and a second part).
For claim 24, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhou discloses the electronic device, wherein the first information and the second information are same information (Itoh: [0047] — generating text data from recognised speech whereby the disfluencies encountered in the speech are automatically removed (the disfluencies being meaninglessly uttered voice), the transcript then being displayed on a display device (indicating that after the meaninglessly uttered voice is removed, the remaining utterance would constitute the first information, or in the event that there is no meaninglessly uttered voice, the entire utterance would constitute the second information, indicating that the first information and the second information are the same)).
For claim 25, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhou discloses the electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a storage unit configured to store a first voice recognition module for recognizing user’s voice and a second voice recognition module for recognizing only predetermined voice in the user’s voice (Itoh: [0023], [0047] — storage medium being used to establish the speech recognition method along with a speech recognition programme 2a supplied on a storage medium for recognising just speech; [0069], [0070] — another speech recognition programme 2b for recognising disfluencies (the predetermined voice in the user’s voice taken here as the uselessly uttered voice)), and
wherein the processor (Itoh: [0046] — a CPU) is configured to:
identify whether the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input by using the second voice recognition module (Itoh: [0070] — a speech recognition program 2b which is able to recognise disfluencies present in speech), and
recognize the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input by using the first voice recognition module (Itoh: [0048] — a speech recognition program 2a which is able to recognise speech).
As for claim 26, method claim 26 and system claim 16 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 26 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 16.
As for claim 27, method claim 27 and system claim 17 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 27 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 17.
As for claim 28, method claim 28 and system claim 18 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 28 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 18.
As for claim 32, method claim 32 and system claim 22 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 32 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 22.
As for claim 33, method claim 33 and system claim 23 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 33 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 23.
As for claim 34, method claim 34 and system claim 24 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 34 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 24.
As for claim 35, computer program product claim 35 and system claim 16 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for the operation of the system as programmable steps on a computer. Itoh in [0047] provides teaching for non-transitory computer-readable recording medium suitable to read upon the limitations of this claim. Accordingly, claim 35 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 16.
Claims 19, 20, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh (US 2002/0156627 A1) in view of Zhao (US 2017/0236511 A1) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Aravamudan et al. (US 2014/0039895 A1: hereafter — Aravamudan).
For claim 19, claim 16 is incorporated but the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which Aravamudan is now introduced to teach as the electronic device, wherein based on the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input, the user voice input only includes a voice corresponding to user’s intention (Aravamudan: [0013] — interpreting speech in the presence of speech disfluencies; [0018] — applying speech disfluencies (meaninglessly uttered voice) to identifying user’s intent behind speech).
The combination of Itoh in view of Zhao provides teaching for the determination of meaninglessly uttered voice being present in uttered speech, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides in inclusion of a corresponding user’s intention in user voice input that includes meaninglessly uttered voice. This is not new to the art as the reference of Aravamudan is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao which teaches the determination of meaninglessly uttered voice being present in uttered speech, by incorporating the known teaching of Aravamudan which applies the presence of speech disfluencies in an utterance to determine the intent behind the utterance, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of attempting to understand a user’s utterance despite the presence of meaningless utterances without requiring the user to repeat an entire sentence again, leading to quicker response times. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 20, claim 16 is incorporated and the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao further in view of Aravamudan as applied to claim 19 above, discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the voice which is meaninglessly uttered being included in the user voice input, perform a function corresponding to user’s intention based on the remaining voice input other than the voice which is meaninglessly uttered among the user voice input, even if the voice recognition is not performed again (Aravamudan: [0013] — receiving an input from a user, this input containing a speech disfluency, and presenting a ‘subset of content items to the user’ (as the function being performed corresponding to the user intention)).
The combination of Itoh in view of Zhao provides teaching for the determination of meaninglessly uttered voice being present in uttered speech, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the performing of a function based on the determined intent behind the rest of the user’s utterance absent the meaningless utterance. This is seen to be taught by the reference of Aravamudan.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao which teaches the determination of meaninglessly uttered voice being present in uttered speech, by incorporating the known teaching of Aravamudan which applies the presence of speech disfluencies in an utterance to determine the intent behind the utterance, and to perform a function intended by the utterance. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of being able to allow a user have an engaging interaction with a speech-controlled device despite the presence of speech disfluencies, without unnecessarily disrupting the conversation flow by having a user repeat speech commands, leading to quicker response times. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 29, method claim 29 and system claim 19 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 29 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 19.
As for claim 30, method claim 30 and system claim 20 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 30 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 20.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh (US 2002/0156627 A1) in view of Zhao (US 2017/0236511 A1) as applied to claim 16, further in view of YOKOYA et al. (US 2016/0005404 A1: hereafter — Yokoya).
For claim 21, claim 16 is incorporated but the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao fails to explicitly disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Yokoya is now introduced to teach as the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the first information or the second information received from the server being corresponding to an operation for controlling the electronic device, control the operation of the electronic device based the first information or the second information (Yokoya: [0110] – [0112] — speech recognition being received from a server, and the result being applied to controlling a target device).
The combination of Itoh in view of Zhao provides teaching for performing speech recognition at a server, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the response from the server being applied to controlling the operation of the electronic device. This teaching is however not new to the art as the reference of Yokoya is now introduced to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Itoh in view of Zhao which obtains speech recognition results from a server absent the meaningless utterances, by incorporating the known teaching of Yokoya which applies the information received from the server to controlling he operation of the electronic device based on the received information, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of conveniently operating a device through speech as opposed to through button presses on a device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 31, method claim 31 and system claim 21 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 31 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
NUTA et al. (US 2016/0316059 A1) provides teaching for a display for presenting transcripts whereby the transcripts are presented after removing the filler words [0106].
Byrd et al. (US 2010/0104087 A1) provides teaching for removing disfluencies from speech and generating a transcript based on the received speech [0029].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights