DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
All objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 September 2026, in addition to the two (2) which were submitted on 16 August 2026; the individual IDS previously submitted on 13 April 2026, 23 February 2026, 12 December 2026, 05 August 2025, 15 June 2025, 12 February 2025, 26 December 2024, and 24 September 2024; and the previous fifteen (15) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2024 are all in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner, insofar as such consideration is practicable.
It is impractical for the examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references currently cited. An applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. V. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (Emphasis in original). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. V. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D Ind. 1992); Molins PLC V. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. V. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl-1972). By initialing and/or otherwise indicating review of each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that a cursory review has been provided for the cited references.
Please identify the top 10-20 references that are the most relevant art, with pinpoint specific citations for review.
Status of the Claims
Prior to entry of the amendment(s) and/or consideration of the argument(s), the status of the claims is as follows.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are pending.
The specification is objected to for new matter.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,706 in view of Ansari (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0217837, hereinafter Ansari) and Alfred (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0313776, hereinafter Alfred).
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-30 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11-19, 21-22, and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Alfred.
Claims 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari and Alfred as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhoads (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0098056, hereinafter Rhoads) with further support from Non-patent literature to Kubota (Kubota, et al, Design and Implementation of 3D Auditory Scene Visualizer—Towards Auditory Awareness With Face Tracking, 10th IEEE Multimedia Symp., pp. 468-476, 2008, hereinafter Kubota).
Claims 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari and Alfred as applied to claim 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Ebrom (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0125911, hereinafter Ebrom).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 16 August 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the amendment to the paragraphs at pg. 124, lines 29- pg. 125, line 3 and pg. 125, lines 4-5 have been acknowledged and entered.
In view of the amendment to the claim(s), the amendment of claim(s) 1 have been acknowledged and entered.
After entry of the amendments, claim(s) 1-30 remain pending.
In view of the amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 1, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is/are withdrawn. The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is/are maintained as modified in response to amendment, for the reasons provided in the action below.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 1, the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is/are maintained as modified in response to amendment, for the reasons provided in the action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification, see pages 10 of the Response to Non-Final Office Action dated 27 April 2026, which was received on 16 August 2026 (hereinafter Response and Office Action, respectively), have been fully considered.
Applicant provides in the Remarks of the Response that applicant understands the indication of paragraphs 391 and 392 to refer to US 2024/0396971. Applicant further asserts that “this publication is by the USPTO, and the applicant has no control on the content of the publication.” This understanding is incorrect. The examiner was not describing the published application, and the published application was not cited in the rejection. The paragraph number was determined based on a count of the number of paragraphs in applicant's specification, and the objection reflects a deficiency which existed at the time of filing the as-filed specification, which the applicant filed on 08 August 2024 (See Instant Application, pgs. 124-125).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection, see page 10 of the Response, have been fully considered. Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. In light of the approved terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new matter and enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), see page 10-11 of the Response, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the new matter rejections, applicants arguments are not responsive. As explained in the Office Action at pages 16-19, claim 1 recites a device configured to perform a two-step sequential routing architecture, comprising “send, to a server…, the captured first human voice data; receive, from the server… a first command of the first actuator; operate the first actuator, according to the received first command; send, to the server…, the captured second human voice data; receive, from the server…, a second command of a second actuator…; and send, to a controlled device… the received second actuator command, for operating the second actuator therein… wherein the operating of the respective first or second actuator comprises converting an electrical energy to sound waves.” (Office Action, pg. 16). However, the specification provides “no cohesive narrative, flowchart, or specific embodiment that teaches the sequential, two-step operation where a local actuator is triggered first, followed by a second voice command explicitly routed over a local wireless network to a separate device,” as required by the specific combination of limitations provided. (Office Action, pg. 18). As such, there is no evidence in the specification that “the inventor actually conceived of the claimed structure” rather than “just provid[ing] the building blocks.” (Id.)
Applicant has provided no substantive response to the merits of the above described rejection. As explained at MPEP 714.02, “In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action” where the reply “must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.” (MPEP 714.02 citing 37 CFR 1.111(b))
In the Response, applicant indicates, that “Regarding §112(a) (Sections 10-15)… As a non-limiting example, Figures 15a and 17-22 (and the associated description) describe obtaining sensor data (such as voice by microphones), sending for processing by a remote server, and receiving an actuator command from the server as a result of the processing.” (Response, pg. 10). Respectfully, these arguments are non-responsive in that the 112(a) rejection is directed to the lack of a “cohesive narrative, flowchart, or specific embodiment that teaches” that the applicant “conceived of the claimed structure” at the time of filing. Applicant’s referencing of FIGS. 15A and 17-22 without context or explanation as to how said figures constitute or otherwise present the “cohesive narrative, flowchart, or specific embodiment” corresponding to the claimed two-step sequential routing architecture fails to meet this burden.
Applicant is advised to review the specification for specific embodiments which show that “the inventor actually conceived of the claimed structure” rather than “just provid[ing] the building blocks.”
Regarding the enablement rejections, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the Response at pg. 10, applicant merely concludes that the asserted limitation is fully enabled and then argues that Wands cannot be applied to a limitation of a claim. Respectfully, the applicant (1) has failed to provide an adequate response to the rejection and (2) is mischaracterizing the rejection.
Regarding the first argument, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Mere statement(s) that the limitations are fully enabled is/are not sufficient to “distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” (See MPEP 714.02 citing 37 CFR 1.111(b)). Therefore, said argument is improper and are not persuasive.
Regarding the second argument, the enablement rejection, as presented in the Office Action, is directed to the entirety of claim 1. Applicant’s assertion that “‘undue experimentation’ has no meaning in specific single element” is a result of the improper characterization of the rejection. The limitation indicated is the portion of claim 1 to which the enablement rejection is directed, in light of all remaining limitations of the claim. Stated another way, claim 1, with respect to the limitation incorporating “a first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomena,” as understood in the context of the remaining limitations of claim 1, is not described in the specification such that one skilled in the art could make/use the entire invention without undue experimentation.
As recited at the first line of the rejection, “Regarding claim 1, the limitation requiring ‘a first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomena,’ is not described in the specification such that one skilled in the art could make/use the invention without undue experimentation.” (Office Action, pg. 19, emphasis added). Thus, in the context of all limitations of claim 1, the limitation requiring “a first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomena,” is “not described in the specification such that one skilled in the art could make/use” the entire invention described in claim 1 “without undue experimentation.” The distinction that applicant draws is a distinction without difference, as the single limitation which is the focus of the discussion regarding the enablement rejection, causes the entirety of the claim to not be enabled. The scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of the protection sought because said limitation results in, a bare minimum of, undue experimentation to enable the full scope of embodiments captured by entire claim in the context of the indicated limitation.
The remaining portion of applicant’s arguments relate to generalized assertions of patentability and the assertion that examples exist, which do not address the question of the non-enabled breadth of the claimed embodiments. Therefore, the rejection is maintained in light of applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, see pages 11-21 of the Response, have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in light of Ansari in view of Alfred, applicant asserts that the Office Action “fails to explain WHY the different references Ansari and Alfred are analogous and as such can be combined for the obviousness rejection.” (Response, pg. 11). Applicant’s arguments asserting that the Office Action is defective for failing to preemptively explain why the cited references are analogous have been considered but are not persuasive. First, applicant relies on MPEP 707.07(f) and Form Paragraph 7.35.07. However, these sections strictly govern how the Office must respond to an applicant’s traversal of a rejection, not the requirements for establishing an initial prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner’s application of a reference in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 inherently reflects the examiner’s determination that the reference constitutes analogous art. The burden of establishing prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not require that examiners use piecemeal elements derived from unrelated form paragraphs (e.g., the explanation for filling out FP 7.37.05 indicating “In bracket 2, explain why the reference is analogous art”) as part of initial presentation of the rejection. This form paragraph is issued in response to a traversal. As no traversal was present or could possibly be present prior to the first action on the merits, no possible deficiency in response to that traversal could exist under this rationale. As such, applicant's traversal amounts to mere attorney argument asserting patentability.
Second, applicant’s arguments that the cited references are not analogous to one another is not a recognized rationale for the availability of prior art under 35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited references differing from one another is duly noted. However, respectfully, that is not the question asked regarding non-analogous art. Applicant is reminded that “in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention.” (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The measure of analogous art is against the claims of the instant application, not between the cited references themselves.
Applicants assertions of the cited references having or including different fields of endeavor is not dispositive to the question of whether the reference is analogous art to the claims of the Instant Application. Merely stating what applicant understands Ansari and Alfred to be, and asserting that they are different from one another is not sufficient for a proper traversal. If applicant wishes to traverse the references as non-analogous art, applicant must explain how said references differ from the applicant’s claim, not one another. Applicant’s cited basis for arguing deficiency of the Office Action is not a basis upon which the applicant can properly rely. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained over the provided arguments.
Further, the examiner has provided clear explanations of the rejection provided for claim 1 under 35 USC 103 (See explanations for the 103 rejection of claim 1 at Office Action, pgs. 23-29), and applicant has failed to provide a reply which distinctly and specifically points out any supposed errors in the examiner’s action. Applicant’s generalized assertion that “the rejection is conclusory and insufficient to provide any prima facie burden for a rejection” is duly noted but is not persuasive. The rejection provided in the Office Action maps the limitations of each claim to the cited references, provides explanation as to each limitation and mapping to a specific point of the reference, indicates any necessary deficiency of the cited reference, and provides a motivation for the combination. As applicant has not distinctly and specifically pointed out any supposed errors, the Office cannot provide a substantive response for the unnamed supposed errors. Therefore, the rejection is maintained in light of the above argument.
Applicant further argues that Ansari’s “SIP soft client” doesn’t explicitly disclose a microphone, as conceded by the examiner, but “assuming, arguendo, that SIP somehow refers to voice/telephony, it does not suggest more than a single microphone,” and thus does not teach or suggest “multiple microphones for capturing human voice data”. (Response, pg. 14). Therefore, the combination of Ansari and Alfred fail to teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The explanation of existing definitional components of a SIP soft client, based on the plain meaning of the term or phrase, is not the taking of official notice. The “SIP soft client”, specifically described in Ansari as “handling all aspects of the digital home communications, e.g., IP, voice, VoIP, phone connectivity”, is herein referred to as the VoIP SIP soft client. A microphone is a definitional component of a VoIP SIP soft client. Unlike inherency, as explained under MPEP 2112, this is an explicit disclosure by plain meaning under MPEP 2111. A “microphone” under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes any device capable of converting audible or inaudible (or both) incident sound to an electrical signal. All telephony, including VoIP, have a definitional requirement of a microphone and a speaker, such that voice can be received and sent between the sender and receiver.
It is further noted that applicants arguments regarding a SIP soft client not including a microphone or assuming that a SIP VoIP client refers to anything other than “voice/telephony” are disingenuous. Specifically, applicant's own admitted prior art in the specification displays a clear understanding of SIP soft clients as one of three “VoIP systems in widespread use today” where “SIP (for Session Initiation Protocol) is an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard signaling protocol for… telephony” where a “SIP-based VoIP implementation” which the applicant also refers to as a SIP phone, “may send the encoded voice data over the network”. (Instant Application, pg. 13, lines 1-21). The SIP-based VoIP, referenced both in the Instant Application as prior art (e.g., as presented in the background section and described as “…in widespread use today…”) and referenced as a VoIP SIP soft client in Ansari, have a definitional requirement of a “microphone.”
However, assuming said mapping of the limitation is treated as official notice, applicant’s clarification on the matter is appreciated. In applicant’s arguendo, applicant provides the general supporting assertion that a microphone is “required and is conventionally used in telephony applications”, and examiner respectfully agrees. (Response, pg. 15). As such, the only remaining question as to whether the VoIP SIP soft client described in Ansari includes a microphone is whether said VoIP SIP soft client qualifies as a “telephony application.” (Id.) It is further noted that the admitted prior art in the Instant Application also explains that “SIP (for Session Initiation Protocol) is an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard signaling protocol for… telephony.” (Instant Application, pg. 13, lines 1-21). As such, said VoIP SIP soft client of Ansari, as a telephony application, is established under both definitional requirement and official notice, to include a microphone.
Regarding the disclosure of multiple microphones, Ansari does not expressly recite multiple microphones. However, Alfred is cited, in part, to modify the single microphone disclosed by Ansari, to multiple microphones. As provided in the Office Action, Alfred discloses a device comprising multiple microphones wherein the device is configured to: capture, by the multiple microphones, the first and second human voice data (“To enable user interaction with the computing device 100, an input device 190 represents any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech” and “The user’s utterance 210 is converted to a text or digital signal by an automatic speech recognition (ASR) module 220.”; Alfred, ¶ [0024], [0029]). (Office Action, pg. 26). Any number of input mechanisms, as applied to “a microphone for speech,” is multiple microphones. (Id.)
Further, it is noted that applicant is aware of this modification of Ansari by Alfred. As indicated at pg. 19 of the Response, in arguing the deficiencies of the motivation for combination of the Ansari and Alfred, applicant argues that “It is noted that the stated rationale does NOT address ALL the modified features” such as “WHY multiple microphones are used.” (Response, pg. 19, emphasis added). As the applicant argues that motivation for a modification of Ansari to the multiple microphones of Alfred does not exist, applicant is necessarily aware of the reliance on Alfred for multiple microphones. Therefore, the rejection is maintained in light of the above arguments.
Regarding argument (b) of the Response, pg. 15, the argument presented by the applicant is unclear. However, as best as can be understood by the Office, the applicant appears to be arguing that the “one or more LED devices 166” in Ansari is not enabled, because applicant has interpreted the explanation provided regarding the 112(a) enablement rejection as resulting in a general rule that “such mere mentioning ‘…lacks any limiting structural or functional boundary for this phrase’.” In the Response, pg. 15, applicant then cites In re Antor Media Corp. to assert that “Enablement of prior art requires that the reference teach a skilled artisan to make or carry out what it discloses in relation to the claimed invention.” (In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). This argument lacks both legal and factual basis.
First, even if we assume, arguendo, that a rejection can be applied as creating a rule of law, which can then be applied to argue against the cited references applied to the same limitation, the applicant’s analysis itself is fundamentally flawed. Applicant’s interpretation of the enablement rejection is, at best, superficial and conclusory. As explained in the enablement rejection, the specification of the application defines the actuator as “[a]ny element designed for or capable of directly or indirectly affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon under an electric signal control.” (Instant Application, pg. 2, lines 3-4). This understanding is reaffirmed numerous times throughout the specification with alternative phrasings which maintain the breadth, such as:
“An actuator may change, increase, reduce, or otherwise affect the amount of a property or of a physical quantity or the magnitude relating to a physical phenomenon, body or substance.” (Id. at pg. 122, lines 9-10).
“The actuator 61 is a mechanism, system, or device that creates, produces, changes, stimulates, or affects… a physical, chemical, biological or any other phenomenon.” (Id. at pg. 121, lines 6-8).
The meaning of “physical phenomena” is also not limited by the provided examples, which appear to only affirm the understood breadth of the claimed embodiment. Applicant’s affirmatively listed and non-limiting examples of physical phenomena include:
“thermal noise, shot noise, nuclear decaying radiation, photoelectric effect or other quantum phenomena” (Id. at pg. 210, lines 14-15).
“optical and electrical phenomenon” (Id. at pg. 146, lines 16).
“changing or generating temperature, humidity, pressure, audio, vibration, light, motion, sound, proximity, flow rate, electrical voltage, and electrical current.” (Id. at pg. 116, lines 17-20).
“effecting or changing magnetic or electrical quantities such as voltage, current, resistance, conductance, reactance, magnetic flux, electrical charge, magnetic field, electric field, electric power, S-matrix, power spectrum, inductance, capacitance, impedance, phase, noise (amplitude or phase), trans-conductance, trans-impedance, and frequency.”
As a result, there appears to be no limits to what qualifies as a physical phenomenon which is affected, changed, produced, or created by the actuator in the Instant Application.
The claims specifically recite a “first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomenon”. (Instant Application, claim 1). As such, applicant has affirmatively claimed a first actuator which can, within the broadest reasonable interpretation, affect any physical event in the known universe. Speaking without hyperbole, it would be impossible to overstate the breadth of such a claim. As explained in the rejection, “physical phenomena,” both as presented in the specification and as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, describes any event in the physical world, including events which go far beyond what is enabled by the applicant’s disclosure. For example, applicant’s actuator is not enabled for controlling the movement of tectonic plates, speeding up the acceleration of gravity, or affecting the biochemical rate of plant photosynthesis. Yet all of those events are captured by applicant’s “first actuator”. This is the basis for the enablement rejection provided in the Office Action. Applicant’s reduction of that analysis to “mere mentioning ‘... lacks any limiting structural or functional boundary for this phrase’, is too broad and abstract, and thus not enabled,” is not even a colorably reasonable characterization of the enablement rejection provided. As such, applicants use of that characterization as a legal rule, which is then applied to argue the cited reference is not enabled, is devoid of rational basis.
Second, applicant’s citation of In re Antor Media Corp. is self-defeating because the primary holding of Antor establishes that the prior art printed publications cited by an examiner are “presumptively enabling.” (Id. at 1288). The Fed. Cir. in Antor explicitly placed the burden on the applicant to present factual evidence to traverse that presumption. (Id. at 1288, explaining the burden on the applicant to “rebut the presumption of operability… by a preponderance of the evidence”). As indicated above, applicant’s interpretation of the enablement rejection is in error. However, even if applicant’s interpretation of the 112(a) enablement rejection was accurate, it would still not be factual evidence which rebuts the presumption of enablement.
Third, applicant’s arguments conflate the standard for anticipation with the standard for obviousness. Even if we assume, arguendo, that applicant’s generated holding from the rejection was correct and that said generated holding could be properly applied to rebut the presumption of enablement, the fact remains that this is a standard for anticipation, not for obviousness. As explained at MPEP 2121.01, a non-enabling reference may still qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 USC 103. A reference is relied upon for what it explicitly teaches and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, regardless of whether the reference enables the entire disclosed system (MPEP 2121.01(II) citing Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Therefore, the rejection is maintained over the above arguments.
Regarding argument (c) of the Response, pg. 15, applicants argument is not persuasive. Applicant attempts to distinguish the residential gateway from the VoIP SIP soft client. However, the relied on embodiment for the rejection indicates these components as part of a single device. As such, applicants distinction between an “end device” and the gateway is not supported by the rejection or the references. Therefore, the rejection is maintained over the above arguments.
Regarding argument (d) of the Response, pg. 15, applicants argument is not persuasive. As applicant underlined the entire limitation and the limitation is directly addressed in the rejection, applicants intended emphasis is unclear. However, Applicant is directed to the Office Action at pg. 27-28, where Alfred is cited to teach the sounder of Ansari as “a speaker” which “is an electromagnetic loudspeaker designed to function as a sounder for the system”. (Alfred, ¶ [0026]). As the cited limitation is fully addressed in the Office Action, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained over the above arguments.
Regarding improper combination, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant has made numerous assertions regarding the limits of the reference without support. Applicants unsupported interpretation of the reference as a whole notwithstanding, applicant has failed to provide a clear indication as to any asserted deficiencies of the cited reference as mapped to the claims. Upon review of paragraphs [0003]-[0005], and [0047]-[0053], examiner did not find clear support for the argued limits (i.e., the gateway appliance being limited to “communication device that connects between in-premises end devices and external service network”) of Ansari. Even if applicant can find support for that proposition, that argument directly conflicts with other portions of the disclosure. See, for example, processing duties (1)-(19) which are explicitly described as “processing duties performed by the appliance 10.” (Ansari, ¶ [0054]). As such, applicant has failed to present a clear and supported argument that “Modifying the gateway to include the suggested features clearly changes the gateway principle of operation.” The rejection is maintained over the above arguments.
Regarding improper rationale, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant has misstated the requirements and is attempting to hold the Office to a standard that does not exist. The Office has clearly established that a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine Ansari with Alfred. Specifically, “Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway” but “is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system”. Thus, the indicated deficiency is the lack of speech input capability. “The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred.” (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
There is no requirement under 35 U.S.C. 103 or the MPEP that the stated motivation to combine must expressly address or justify the transfer of every individual sub element or word of the claimed limitations. The motivation only needs to justify the combination of the references’ underlying concepts.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 18-19, 28 and 30, it is noted that applicant’s remarks focus entirely on assertions of non-analogous art and the rationale to combine, but fail to traverse the examiner’s findings of fact that the cited references teach the cited limitations. Because applicant has not presented arguments traversing the actual teachings of the prior art, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 3, 5-17, 20-27, and 29, it is noted that applicant’s remarks fail to traverse or even address the examiner’s findings of fact that the cited references teach the cited limitations. Because applicant has not presented arguments traversing the actual teachings of the prior art, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant has not provided any further statement and therefore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to the below rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a device configured to perform a two-step sequential routing architecture, comprising:
“send, to a server…, the captured first human voice data; receive, from the server… a first command of the first actuator; operate the first actuator, according to the received first command;
send, to the server…, the captured second human voice data; receive, from the server…, a second command of a second actuator…; and send, to a controlled device… the received second actuator command, for operating the second actuator therein…
wherein the operating of the respective first or second actuator comprises converting an electrical energy to sound waves.”
The specification fails to provide adequate written description for this specific combination and sequential arrangement of elements. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that merely disclosing a list of disparate elements does not provide written description support, for a newly claimed, specific combination of those elements, unless the specification directs the reader to that specific combination. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors ... considered the ratio... to be part of their invention .... There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).
Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ipsis verbis” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.
Thus, to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must do more than just provide the building blocks. It must show that the inventor actually conceived of the claimed structure. In the instant application, there is no cohesive narrative, flowchart, or specific embodiment that teaches the sequential, two-step operation where a local actuator is triggered first, followed by a second voice command explicitly routed over a local wireless network to a separate device. The specification appears to disclose a compendium of possible “actuators”, said actuators being assertedly capable of “affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon”. The actuators themselves include “Any element designed for or capable of directly or indirectly affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon under an electric signal control.” (Instant Application, [0086]). Exemplary embodiments notwithstanding, the claimed “physical phenomena” which can be affected by the actuators is without limit. Accordingly, physical phenomena is not specifically limited, as the applicant defines the actuator based on the physical phenomena, indicating the actuator as “[a]ny element designed for or capable of directly or indirectly affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon under an electric signal control” (Id.). However, the four corners of the specification lack the necessary “blaze marks” to direct a person having ordinary skill in the art to the specific sequential two-step interactive voice hub architecture claimed in claim 1 and in dependent claims thereon.
The specification discloses the individual hardware components in isolation, as part of unrelated “laundry list” embodiments. For example, a voice capture, server processing, and return command loop (e.g., ¶ [0132]), the microphones for sensing voice (e.g., ¶ [0055]), an internet connected control server (e.g., ¶ [0132]), generic actuators for “affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon” (e.g., ¶ [0168]), and various sounders (e.g., ¶ [0099]-[0100], and [0435]-[0440]), and a variety of distinct devices communicating over different networks (e.g., [0029], [0169]-[0170], and [0358]. However, the above described laundry lists merely provide generic network and/or smart home building blocks, from which the invention described in claim 1 is assembled. However, the application does not recite the elements in combination with one another as described in claim 1. In light of the lack of “ipsis verbis” recitation of the claim limitations, upon review of the specification as a whole, there does not appear to be the above described “blaze marks” in the written description supporting the combination of limitations in the continuation application as filed. As well, applicant as not indicated where support for this combination can be found in the specification. Therefore, claim 1 as presented lacks specification support and is rejected.
Regarding claims 2-30, claims 2-30 depend from claim 1 and incorporate all limitations therefrom. Therefore, claims 2-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) for at least the same reasons as described with reference to claim 1.
Claims 1-30 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation requiring “a first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomena,” is not described in the specification such that one skilled in the art could make/use the invention without undue experimentation. To determine whether undue experimentation is required to practice the full scope of this claim, the framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors are applied below. (See MPEP 2164.01(a)).
The Wands factors are (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Each of the Wands factors are expressly considered here. However, due to a lack of evidence regarding specific factors and/or limited probative nature of said factor under the specific circumstances of the present application, the substantive discussion included herein is limited to the factors discussed below.
Regarding the breadth of the claims, the claimed scope of a “physical phenomena” is functionally infinite. The specification lacks any limiting structural or functional boundary for this phrase, instead dictating that it encompasses “the amount of a property or of a physical quantity or the magnitude relating to a physical phenomena, body, or substance,” as well as any time derivative, linear density, surface density, volume density, or flux. (Instant Application, [0058]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses practically any measurable change or state in the physical universe, ranging from simple temperature adjustments to the manipulation of gravitational fields or nuclear strong forces.
One might attempt to temper the vast breadth of the phrase “physical phenomena” by reading implied structural limitations into the associated term “actuator.” However, such a narrowing interpretation is expressly precluded by the specification’s own lexicography. The specification circularly defines an “actuator” entirely by its functional ability to affect a physical phenomenon, stating that “[a]ny element designed for or capable of directly or indirectly affecting, changing, producing, or creating a physical phenomenon under an electric signal control” (Instant Application, [0086]). Further, the text broadly explains an actuator as any “mechanism, system, or device that creates, produces, changes, stimulates, or affects a phenomena” (Instant Application, [0382]). Because the applicant has acted as their own lexicographer to define an actuator strictly by the infinite functional result of affecting a “physical phenomenon,” the term actuator provides no limiting structural boundaries. Consequently, the interplay of these two definitions creates a functionally boundless genus that requires the specification to enable virtually any device altering any measurable state in the physical universe.
Regarding the amount of direction provided and working examples, the specification provides working examples for only a microscopic fraction of the genus. The specification adequately teaches using an “actuator such as a heater to change temperature, an LED to emit light, or a sounder to convert electrical energy into sound waves. However, the specification provides absolutely no direction, guidance, or working examples for how an actuator might be structurally configured to affect the vast majority of other physical phenomena encompassed by the above described claim limitation.
Regarding the level of predictability, general physics and environmental manipulation represent highly unpredictable arts when claimed at this level of abstraction. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would only be enabled to make and use actuators for the mundane species explicitly taught (e.g., turning on an LED or a heater). To successfully configure an actuator capable of affecting any or every physical phenomena falling within the bounds of claim 1 would require a person of ordinary skill to engage in profound, possibly even insurmountable, undue experimentation that far exceeds the teachings of the specification.
In light of the fact that the applicant has claimed a functionally infinite genus while only enabling an extremely narrow subset of simple electronic species, the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of the protection sought. Therefore, claim 1 is not enabled and the claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Regarding claims 2-30, claims 2-30 depend from claim 1 and incorporate all limitations therefrom. Therefore, claims 2-30 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) for at least the same reasons as described with reference to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-8, 11-19, 21-22, and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Alfred.
Regarding claim 1, Ansari discloses A device for use with a wireless network over an unlicensed radio frequency band, and for use with a controlled device (The systems and methods described with reference to “multi-services residential gateway appliance 10” that “may be provided by implementation of... a wireless network interface via a WiFi LAN access point 62 provided, for example, in accordance with the I.E.E.E. 802.11b/g/n wireless or wireless network communications standard” and which is used for controlling a “myriad of interconnected digital endpoint devices”; Ansari, ¶ [0055], [0057]), the device comprising: [a microphone] for capturing human voice data (Though not expressly disclosed as including a microphone, the residential gateway can further include “SIP soft clients” as an “in home device” for “supporting voice services”, where the SIP soft client is understood in the art to include a microphone, as part of “handling all aspects of the digital home communications, e.g., IP, voice, VoIP, phone connectivity” (emphasis added); Ansari, ¶ [0060], [0080]); an antenna for coupling to the wireless network (“the appliance 10” can further include “a wireless network interface via a WiFi LAN access point 62” which is depicted in FIG. 2B as including an antenna.; Ansari, ¶ [0057]; FIG. 2B); a transceiver coupled to the antenna for transmitting to, and for receiving from, the wireless network (The “WiFi LAN access point 62” including the “corresponding 802.11b/g/n wireless device driver,” acts as a transceiver (i.e., a transmitter and a receiver) within the broadest reasonable interpretation, for purposes of transmitting to and receiving from the wireless network.; Ansari, ¶ [0062]); a first actuator for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomenon (The gateway appliance includes “one or more LED devices 166” where an LED is an actuator within the BRI of the instant application, “for indicating status and other usable information to users of the appliance” through the emission of light {for affecting, changing, producing, or creating a first physical phenomenon}, where “Any change in status of these devices will come as notifications or alerts”; Ansari, ¶ [0062], [0189]); a processor coupled to control the transceiver, to receive captured first and second human voice data from the multiple microphones, and to control or activate the first actuator (“More particularly, as shown in FIG. 2B, a base support layer 102 comprises essential hardware components including a processor device 152, e.g., a system on chip central processing unit (“CPU”) that includes processing elements, digital signal processor resources and memory” which includes all hardware of the appliance 10, including controlling the home automation networking device 20, the microphone (as hardware related to the SIP soft client), and one or more LED devices 166 which are all controlled by the CPU 152 through “device drivers layer 104”; Ansari, ¶ [0062], [0064]); and a non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises instructions executable by the processor, (the “CPU 152 is also coupled to a random access memory (“RAM”) and additionally, non-volatile hard drive/disk magnetic and/or optical disk memory storage 154” which provide “non-volatile storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, objects, and other data for use by the gateway device” through CPU 152; Ansari, ¶ [0062]) wherein the device is configured to: capture... the first and second [commands] (“a user may check on the status of each of these devices and send commands to change the status information,” and “Moreover, as shown in Fig. 15, via the IM server functionality, a user is able to control home networking devices 665 of home automation devices locally or remotely.”; Ansari, ¶ [0187]-[0189]); operate the first actuator, according to the received first command (The gateway appliance includes “one or more LED devices 166 for indicating status and other usable information to users of the appliance” through the emission of light where “Any change in status of these devices” such as in response to “commands to change the status information” as received from the user “will come as notifications or alerts.”; Ansari, ¶ [0062], [0189]); and send, to a controlled device that comprises the second actuator, over the wireless network (“the gateway appliance interfaces with digital endpoint devices including, but not limited to: a home automation networking device 20 (e.g., X10, Z-Wave or ZigBee) for wired or wireless home network automation and control of networked home devices such as a switch controller 22, sensor devices 23, automatically controlled window blinds 24, a controlled lighting or lamp unit 25 etc.”; Ansari, ¶ [0058]), the received second actuator command, for operating the second actuator therein, (“for example, this functionality specifically provides means to configure and control networking devices and home automation devices, e.g., networked light switch 166 controlling light fixture 167”; Ansari, ¶ [0187]) wherein the first or second actuator comprises a sounder… (“the gateway appliance interfaces with the digital endpoint devices including… a VoIP phone 26” and “FXS interfaces 162 are provided to support analog phone devices…” where, when the client device is a VoIP or analog phone, the client device is universally understood to include a physical “ringer” (and/or an electric bell/buzzer in older models) which operate in response to electrical input, functioning as a sounder to alert the user of an incoming call or message.; Ansari, ¶ [0058], [0062]). However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the device is configured to: capture, by the multiple microphones, the first and second human voice data; send, to a server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured first human voice data; receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured first human voice data, a first command of the first actuator; send, to the server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured second human voice data; receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured second human voice data, a second command of a second actuator that is configured for affecting, changing, producing, or creating, a second physical phenomenon wherein the first or second actuator comprises a sounder that comprises an electromagnetic loudspeaker, a piezoelectric speaker, an electrostatic loudspeaker (ESL), a ribbon or planar magnetic loudspeaker, or a bending wave loudspeaker, and wherein the operating of the respective first or second actuator comprises converting an electrical energy to sound waves.
Alfred teaches systems, devices, and methods for “performing speech recognition to control specified devices.” (Alfred, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 1, Alfred teaches the device comprising: multiple microphones for capturing human voice data (“To enable user interaction with the computing device 100, an input device 190 represents any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech” and the input device 190 as part of “any number of input mechanisms” can “be one or more of a number of [input] means” (the use of the word “also” indicates that the applied description for the device output 170 applied equally to the input device 190); Alfred, ¶ [0024]), wherein the device is configured to: capture, by the multiple microphones, the first and second human voice data (“To enable user interaction with the computing device 100, an input device 190 represents any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech” and “The user’s utterance 210 is converted to a text or digital signal by an automatic speech recognition (ASR) module 220.”; Alfred, ¶ [0024], [0029]); send, to a server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured first human voice data (“an embodiment of the present invention where a device is controlled by the user calling into the system 200 from a telephone, either land-line, cellular, or VoIP or any other communication system to access a user profile 230 that allows the user to control a device 240,”; Alfred, ¶ [0029]); receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured first human voice data, a first command of the first actuator (“The digital signal is then communicated in association with the user profile where key words are picked up and converted into device specific text… which is then used to operate the device”; Alfred, ¶ [0047]); send, to the server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured second human voice data (“To enable user interaction with the computing device 100, an input device 190 represents any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech” and, as described with reference to an example, “The user, after receiving the information generated by the cable enabled device, can...place a command with a recording device to record the movie that was identified by the cable enabled device” which is understood as a follow-up or additional command which is provided after an initial command of some kind (e.g., in response to the results of a first command); Alfred, ¶ [0024], [0039]); receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured second human voice data, a second command of a second actuator (As described with reference to an example, “ if a user utterance 210 is “need to record M.A.S.H. at 5 pm on channel 132”, the user profile 230 will receive the text of that utterance from ASR 220 and convert that to a device specific control signal that is transmitted to a device 240 that may be a cable set top box” where the device specific control signal, as previously indicated, may be “device specific text… which is then used to operate the device”; Alfred, ¶ [0033], [0047]) that is configured for affecting, changing, producing, or creating, a second physical phenomenon (The device specific text can then be used, for example, to “set the recording mechanism to record the desired program at its appropriate time and channel.”; Alfred, ¶ [0033]) wherein the first or second actuator comprises a sounder that comprises an electromagnetic loudspeaker, a piezoelectric speaker, an electrostatic loudspeaker (ESL), a ribbon or planar magnetic loudspeaker, or a bending wave loudspeaker (“the output device may include a speaker that generates the audible sound representing the computer synthesized speech,” where a speaker is an electromagnetic loudspeaker designed to function as a sounder for the system.; Alfred, ¶ [0026]), and wherein the operating of the respective first or second actuator comprises converting an electrical energy to sound waves (“…generates the audible sound representing the computer synthesized speech,” where the operation of a speaker is the receiving of an electrical audio signal from the system and converting that electrical audio signal into physical sound waves to generate audible sound.; Alfred, ¶ [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the device is configured to: capture, by the multiple microphones, the first and second human voice data; send, to a server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured first human voice data; receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured first human voice data, a first command of the first actuator; send, to the server over the Internet via the wireless network, the captured second human voice data; receive, from the server over the Internet via the wireless network, in response to the sending to the server of the captured second human voice data, a second command of a second actuator that is configured for affecting, changing, producing, or creating, a second physical phenomenon wherein the first or second actuator comprises a sounder that comprises an electromagnetic loudspeaker, a piezoelectric speaker, an electrostatic loudspeaker (ESL), a ribbon or planar magnetic loudspeaker, or a bending wave loudspeaker, and wherein the operating of the respective first or second actuator comprises converting an electrical energy to sound waves. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ansari further discloses A system comprising the device according to claim 1 in a building and the server is external to the building, further configured to (The gateway appliance of claim 1 is “a secure platform for building and providing multiple services for digital clients at the premises” and “The secure platform for building and providing multiple services for digital clients at the premises assumes connectivity between the appliance 10 and each of a user’s digital devices” which may be connected via a LAN, thus the device is in “the premises {a building}”; Ansari, ¶ [0055]) and the server is external to the building (“service center 50 is provided, in one embodiment, via a wide area networks (WAN) interface, such as Ethernet WAN 53 over a broadband connection via the public Internet 99” such that “the service center 50 generally provides a secure IP-based communications and processing infrastructure for supporting the variety of services and applications and communications residing at multiple gateway devices 10 1,.. 10 n” Thus the service center 50 is external to the “the premises” for any of the “multiple gateway devices 10 1,.. 10 n”; Ansari, ¶ [0056])...sending, by the device, of the captured first human voice data (The residential gateway can further include “SIP soft clients” as an “in home device” for “supporting voice services”, where the SIP soft client is “for supporting voice services, e.g., by providing for calls from SIP soft clients”; Ansari, ¶ [0060], [0080]) ...sending, by the device, of the captured second human voice data (As indicated with regards to the first user utterance, the “SIP soft clients” as implemented through the gateway appliance, can include “supporting voice services, e.g., by providing for calls from SIP soft clients,” where the plural “voice services” includes a second user utterance.; Ansari, ¶ [0060], [0080]). However, Ansari fails to expressly recite further configured to: receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured first human voice data, in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured first human voice data; process, by the server, the received captured first human voice data; produce the first command, in response to the processing of the received captured first human voice data; send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced first command; receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured second human voice data, in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured second human voice data; process, by the server, the received captured second human voice data; produce the second command, in response to the processing of the received captured second human voice data; and send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced second command.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Alfred teaches further configured to: receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured first human voice data (The “system 200” receives the first user utterance “from a telephone, either land-line, cellular, or VoIP or any other communication system to access a user profile 230 that allows the user to control a device 240.”; Alfred, ¶ [0029]), in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured first human voice data (The system 200 receives the user utterance from “from a telephone, either land-line, cellular, or VoIP or any other communication system” and “The user may employ any method that will carry a voice signal to the system 200,” which, in the context of Ansari, includes the SIP soft client disclosed at [0080].; Alfred, ¶ [0029]-[0030]); process, by the server, the received captured first human voice data (“The user’s utterance 210 is converted” by the system 200 “to a text or digital signal by an automatic speech recognition (ASR) module 220.”; Alfred, ¶ [0029]); produce the first command, in response to the processing of the received captured first human voice data (The system 200 can include “converting the received utterance to text using automatic speech recognition module” and “converting at least a portion of the text to the device specific control language”; Alfred, ¶ [0052]); send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced first command (“transmitting the device specific control language to the identified device, wherein the identified device implements a function based on the transmitted device specific control language”; Alfred, ¶ [0052]); receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured second human voice data (As indicated with regards to the first user utterance, the “system 200” receives the second user utterance “from a telephone, either land-line, cellular, or VoIP or any other communication system to access a user profile 230 that allows the user to control a device 240.”; Alfred, ¶ [0029]), in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured second human voice data (The system 200 receives the second user utterance from “from a telephone, either land-line, cellular, or VoIP or any other communication system” and “The user may employ any method that will carry a voice signal to the system 200,” which, in the context of Ansari, includes the SIP soft client disclosed at [0080].; Alfred, ¶ [0029]-[0030]); process, by the server, the received captured second human voice data (“The [second] user’s utterance 210 is converted” by the system 200 “to a text or digital signal by an automatic speech recognition (ASR) module 220.”; Alfred, ¶ [0029]); produce the second command, in response to the processing of the received captured second human voice data (The system 200 can include “converting the received utterance to text using automatic speech recognition module” and “converting at least a portion of the text to the device specific control language”; Alfred, ¶ [0029], [0052]); and send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced second command (The system further includes “transmitting the device specific control language to the identified device, wherein the identified device implements a function based on the transmitted device specific control language”; Alfred, ¶ [0052]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include further configured to: receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured first human voice data, in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured first human voice data; process, by the server, the received captured first human voice data; produce the first command, in response to the processing of the received captured first human voice data; send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced first command; receive, by the server from the device over the Internet, the captured second human voice data, in response to the sending, by the device, of the captured second human voice data; process, by the server, the received captured second human voice data; produce the second command, in response to the processing of the received captured second human voice data; and send, by the server to the device over the Internet, the produced second command. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ansari further discloses further comprising a sensor that outputs sensor data in response to a physical phenomenon, (“the gateway appliance interfaces with digital endpoint devices including, but not limited to: a home automation networking device 20 (e.g., X10, Z-Wave or ZigBee) for wired or wireless home network automation and control of networked home devices such as a switch controller 22, sensor devices 23”; Ansari, ¶ [0058]). However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the device is further configured to send, to the server via the wireless network over the Internet, the sensor data, and wherein the first command is further responsive to the sent sensor data.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Alfred teaches wherein the device is further configured to send, to the server via the wireless network over the Internet, the sensor data (In response to the receipt of the user utterance (e.g., for example, “a parent calls...”), and the system 200 responds by “check[ing] the status of a device in the home or at a business” where the automated checking of the status of a device is a request for sensor data, and the receipt of information in response to that request, indicates that the sensor is configured to send of sensor data.; Alfred, ¶ [0040]), and wherein the first command is further responsive to the sent sensor data (The first command is derived from the first input, the sensor data (e.g., “status of a device”) is responsive to a request for further information regarding the first input, such that the system 200 can properly generate the command while applying all known conditions (e.g., workplace restrictions, parental controls, etc.). Therefore, the first command is responsive to the sensor data.; Alfred, ¶ [0038]-[0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the device is further configured to send, to the server via the wireless network over the Internet, the sensor data, and wherein the first command is further responsive to the sent sensor data. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the sensor is a thermoelectric sensor that responds to a temperature or to a temperature gradient of an object using a conduction, convection, or radiation, or wherein the sensor is a photoelectric sensor that responds to a visible or an invisible light or gamma rays (Discloses the user command “set the thermostat of the ‘downstairs HVAC unit’ to 75 degrees” where a thermostat is a thermoelectric sensor that measures and outputs data in response to the physical phenomena of temperature in order to govern an HVAC unit to locally control the physical phenomena of temperature.; Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses further comprising, or consisting of, a client device (Discloses that the gateway appliance 10 includes connectivity to “each of a user’s digital endpoint devices” which are also referred to as client devices {comprising, or consisting of, a client device}; Ansari, ¶ [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the first or second physical phenomenon comprises a temperature, humidity, pressure, audio, or vibration (Discloses the user command “set the thermostat of the ‘downstairs HVAC unit’ to 75 degrees” where a thermostat is a thermoelectric sensor that measures and outputs data in response to the physical phenomena of temperature in order to govern an HVAC unit, the governing of the HVAC unit being to locally control the physical phenomena of temperature.; Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the first or second physical phenomenon comprises a sound, flow rate, electrical voltage, or electrical current (Discloses the user command “set the thermostat of the ‘downstairs HVAC unit’ to 75 degrees” where a thermostat is a thermoelectric sensor that measures and outputs data in response to the physical phenomena of temperature in order to govern an HVAC unit through control of electrical voltage/current to the HVAC unit.; Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses further comprising a volatile or non-volatile memory coupled to the processor that stores an address for uniquely identifying the respective device in the wireless network or in the Internet (“Some of the in-home endpoint device processing duties performed by the appliance 10 include, but are not limited to: 1) detecting new devices and provide IP addresses dynamically or statically”; Ansari, ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the address is a Media Access Control (MAC) layer address that is MAC-48, Extended Unique Identifier (EUI) EUI-48, or EUI-64 type, or wherein the address is a layer 3 address that is a static or dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address that is IPv4 or IPv6 type address (“Some of the in-home endpoint device processing duties performed by the appliance 10 include, but are not limited to: 1) detecting new devices and provide IP addresses dynamically or statically” using a “Internet Protocol (e.g., Ipv4, Ipv6, etc.) configured connection” where an IP address, as of the effective filing date of Ansari, was well known to one having ordinary skill in the art to be necessarily either static or dynamic (IP addresses must necessarily be one or the other), be a layer 3 (or network layer) address as established by the OSI model, and be based on the IPv4 or IPv6 protocols.; Ansari, ¶ [0054], [0065]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), that is according to, or based on, a Bluetooth™ or Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.5.-2005 standards, or wherein the WPAN is a wireless control network that is according to, or based on, Zigbee™, IEEE 802.5.-2003, or Z-Wave™ standards (Discloses interfacing with “a home automation networking device 20 (e.g., X10, Z-Wave or ZigBee) for wired or wireless home network automation and control of networked home devices such as a switch controller 22, sensor devices 23, automatically controlled window blinds 24, a controlled lighting or lamp unit 25 etc.;”; Ansari, ¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) that is according to, or base on, IEEE 802.11-2012, IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) IEEE 802.11g, IEEE 802.11n, or IEEE 802.11ac (Discloses “a wireless network interface via a WiFi LAN access point 62 provided, for example, in accordance with the I.E.E.E. 802.11b/g/n wireless or wireless network communications standard.”; Ansari, ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the unlicensed radio frequency band is an Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) radio band (Discloses “a wireless network interface via a WiFi LAN access point 62 provided, for example, in accordance with the I.E.E.E. 802.11b/g/n wireless or wireless network communications standard.,” 802.11b/g/n wireless where 802.11b/g/n is well known in the art to operate over the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) radio bands.; Ansari, ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the wireless network is a cellular telephone network that is a Third Generation (3G) network that uses an Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA) UMTS, High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), UMTS Time-Division Duplexing (TDD), CDMA2000 1xRTT, Evolution – Data Optimized (EV-DO), Global System for Mobile communications (GSM), Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) EDGE-Evolution, or wherein the cellular telephone network is a Fourth Generation (4G) network that uses an Evolved High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA+), Mobile Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Long-Term Evolution (LTE), LTE-Advanced, Mobile Broadband Wireless Access (MBWA), or is based on IEEE 802.20-2008 (Discloses the wireless network operating “via a wireless EvDO (Evolution Data Optimized) Internet data interface embodied as a PCMCIA (personal computer memory) wireless card 56”; Ansari, ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the device or the controlled device is integrated with, is part of, or is entirely included in, an appliance (The systems and methods described with reference to “multi-services residential gateway appliance 10” where the device is the gateway appliance 10.; Ansari, ¶ [0055], [0057]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein a primary functionality of the appliance is associated with a food storage, handling, or preparation.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 18, Alfred teaches wherein a primary functionality of the appliance is associated with a food storage, handling, or preparation (“The system 200 can control any remotely operable device” such as “kitchen appliances,” where kitchen appliances are associated with food storage, handling, or preparation.; Alfred, ¶ [0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein a primary functionality of the appliance is associated with a food storage, handling, or preparation. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the primary function of the appliance is heating food, and wherein the appliance is a microwave oven, an electric mixer, a stove, an oven, or an induction cooker.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 19, Alfred teaches wherein the primary function of the appliance is heating food, and wherein the appliance is a microwave oven, an electric mixer, a stove, an oven, or an induction cooker (“The system 200 can control any remotely operable device” such as “kitchen appliances,” where kitchen appliances are associated with food storage, handling, or preparation, and FIG. 5 specifically discloses an “oven 512”; Alfred, ¶ [0032]; FIG. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the primary function of the appliance is heating food, and wherein the appliance is a microwave oven, an electric mixer, a stove, an oven, or an induction cooker. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the primary function of the appliance is associated with an environmental control, and the appliance is part of a Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system (Discloses the user command “set the thermostat of the ‘downstairs HVAC unit’ to 75 degrees” where the appliance is an HVAC unit having a primary function of locally controlling the physical phenomena of temperature (environmental control); Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the primary function of the appliance is associated with a temperature control, and wherein the appliance is an air conditioner or a heater (Discloses the user command “set the thermostat of the ‘downstairs HVAC unit’ to 75 degrees” where the appliance is an HVAC unit having a primary function of locally controlling the physical phenomena of temperature (environmental control), and the setting of a thermostat is with relation to an air conditioner or a heater.; Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the appliance is an answering machine, a telephone set, a home cinema system, a High Fidelity (HiFi) system, a Compact Disc (CD) or Digital Video Disc (DVD) player, an electric furnace, a trash compactor, a smoke detector, a light fixture, or a dehumidifier (“other digital endpoint devices for which connectivity may be established with the appliance 10 include, but are not limited to: personal music or media players, hi-fi audio equipment with media streaming capability, game stations, Internet radio devices, Wi-Fi phones, wifi or other wirelessly enabled digital cameras, facsimile machines, electronic picture frames, health monitors (sensor and monitoring devices), etc. “; Ansari, ¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the second actuator comprises an electric light source for converting an electrical energy into a light that emits a visible or non-visible light for illumination or indication, and the non-visible light is infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, or gamma rays (discloses “a controlled lighting or lamp unit 25” and/or “networked light switch 166 controlling light fixture 167” which is an electric light source which emits visible or non-visible light, the light is for illumination (as this is the understood purpose for a “lamp” and a light in a “light fixture”).; Ansari, ¶ [0058], [0187]).
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the electric light source comprises a lamp, an incandescent lamp, a gas discharge lamp, a fluorescent lamp, a Solid-State Lighting (SSL), a Light Emitting Diode (LED), an Organic LED (OLED), a polymer LED (PLED), or a laser diode (discloses “a controlled lighting or lamp unit 25” and/or “networked light switch 166 controlling light fixture 167”; Ansari, ¶ [0058], [0187]).
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the second actuator is a motion actuator that causes a linear or rotary motion (Discloses the appliance is an HVAC unit having a primary function to locally control the physical phenomena of temperature (environmental control). Where an HVAC units are well known in the art to include a blower for a heater and a compressor for an AC unit, each of which are motion actuators causing both linear and rotary motion to locally control the physical phenomena of temperature.; Ansari, ¶ [0207]).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the sounder is configured for an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional emitting of audible or inaudible sound waves.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 28, Alfred teaches wherein the sounder is configured for an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional emitting of audible or inaudible sound waves (“provide the audio to a receiver/amplifier of a Home Sound System (stereo or digital multi-channel)” where a speaker is a sounder configured for an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional emitting of audible or inaudible sound waves.; Alfred, ¶ [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the sounder is configured for an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional emitting of audible or inaudible sound waves. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari further discloses wherein the sounder further comprises an electric bell, a buzzer, a chime, a whistle, or a ringer (“the gateway appliance interfaces with the digital endpoint devices including… a VoIP phone 26” and “FXS interfaces 162 are provided to support analog phone devices…” where, when the client device isa VoIP or analog phone, the client device is universally understood to include a physical “ringer” (and/or an electric bell/buzzer in older models) which operate in response to electrical input, functioning as a sounder to alert the user of an incoming call or message.; Ansari, ¶ [0058], [0062]).
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises a playing digital audio content that is pre-recorded or synthesized, or wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises simulating the voice of a human being or generating a music, or wherein the operating of the first actuator further comprises sounding a syllable, a word, a phrase, a sentence, a short story, or a long story, using male or female voice.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 30, Alfred teaches wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises a playing digital audio content that is pre-recorded or synthesized, or wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises simulating the voice of a human being or generating a music, or wherein the operating of the first actuator further comprises sounding a syllable, a word, a phrase, a sentence, a short story, or a long story, using male or female voice (“This standard digital signal is then converted to a generated response 430 by the synthesizer 420”; Alfred, ¶ [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises a playing digital audio content that is pre-recorded or synthesized, or wherein the operating of the first actuator comprises simulating the voice of a human being or generating a music, or wherein the operating of the first actuator further comprises sounding a syllable, a word, a phrase, a sentence, a short story, or a long story, using male or female voice. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]).
Claims 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari and Alfred as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhoads with further support from Kubota.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari fails to expressly recite wherein the processing comprises performing a voice recognition algorithm for identifying the voice of a specific person.
The relevance of Alfred is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Alfred teaches wherein the processing comprises…[recognizing] a specific person (Discloses “a device is controlled by the user calling into the system 200 from a… communication system to access a user profile 230 that allows the user to control a device 240,” thus disclosing the identification of a specific person as corresponding to a user profile.; Alfred, ¶ [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari to incorporate the teachings of Alfred to include wherein the processing comprises…[recognizing] a specific person. Ansari discloses a robust, highly capable home automation gateway. However, Ansari is described in the context of texts and is silent regarding the direct use of speech inputs for controlling the described system. The network-based speech recognition system of Alfred includes receiving speech at a server and generating text for use in controlling remote devices, where the incorporation of network-based text-to-speech would increase user convenience by allowing natural language input, rather than forcing the user to manually type commands, and, as such, would be more responsive to immediate user intent, as recognized by Alfred. (Alfred, ¶ [0005], [0009]-[0010]). However, Ansari and Alfred fail to expressly recite wherein the processing comprises performing a voice recognition algorithm for identifying the voice of a specific person.
Rhoads teaches systems and methods for improving device cognition of user intent based on user input and environment. (Rhoads, ¶ [0002], [0009], [0016]). Regarding claim 3, Rhoads teaches wherein the processing comprises performing a voice recognition algorithm for identifying the voice of a specific person (Discloses “one or more audio sensors (microphones) in the smart phone listens to the audio environment” and “Speaker/speech recognition software analyzes the captured audio, to attempt to identify person(s) speaking, and discern the words being spoken.”; Rhoads, ¶ [0615]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari, as modified by the network based speech recognition system of Alfred to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to include wherein the processing comprises performing a voice recognition algorithm for identifying the voice of a specific person. The multi-microphone array and DOA processing of Rhoads, as applied to user/environmental context isolation, improves on the single microphone of Ansari/Alfred by enabling the client device to spatially isolate the user’s spoken commands and filter out background noise, such as televisions or other conversations, providing the predictable result of more robust, error-resistant voice control interface for the home automation network, as understood in light of the disclosure of Rhoads. (Rhoads, ¶ [0749]-[0751]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari and Alfred fail to expressly recite wherein the multiple microphones are arranged as a directional microphones array operative to estimate a number, magnitude, frequency, Direction-Of-Arrival (DOA), distance, or speed of a sound impinging the microphones array.
The relevance of Rhoads is described above with relation to claim 3. Regarding claim 9, Rhoads teaches wherein the multiple microphones are arranged as a directional microphones array operative to estimate a number, magnitude, frequency, Direction-Of-Arrival (DOA), distance, or speed of a sound impinging the microphones array (Discloses an audio scene analyzer comprising “a microphone array” which “localizes and separates sounds, and recognizes the separated sounds by speech recognition techniques” including indicating the “placement of the sound sources relative to the microphone array at a selected time point” and “directional filtering so as to remove undesired sound sources. “; Rhoads, ¶ [0749]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari, as modified by the network based speech recognition system of Alfred to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to include wherein the multiple microphones are arranged as a directional microphones array operative to estimate a number, magnitude, frequency, Direction-Of-Arrival (DOA), distance, or speed of a sound impinging the microphones array. The multi-microphone array and DOA processing of Rhoads, as applied to user/environmental context isolation, improves on the single microphone of Ansari/Alfred by enabling the client device to spatially isolate the user’s spoken commands and filter out background noise, such as televisions or other conversations, providing the predictable result of more robust, error-resistant voice control interface for the home automation network, as understood in light of the disclosure of Rhoads. (Rhoads, ¶ [0749]-[0751]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari and Alfred fail to expressly recite wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional microphone that is based on the sensing an incident sound-based motion of a diaphragm or a ribbon, or wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises a condenser, an electret, a dynamic, a ribbon, a carbon, or a piezoelectric microphone.
The relevance of Rhoads is described above with relation to claim 3. Regarding claim 10, Rhoads teaches wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional microphone that is based on the sensing an incident sound-based motion of a diaphragm or a ribbon, or wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises a condenser, an electret, a dynamic, a ribbon, a carbon, or a piezoelectric microphone (The audio scene analyzer is described as being the “Kubota system” as incorporated by reference from “Kubota, et al, Design and Implementation of 3D Auditory Scene Visualizer—Towards Auditory Awareness With Face Tracking, 10th IEEE Multimedia Symp., pp. 468-476, 2008”, which Kubota explains (at pg. 471, col. 2, lines 5-8) their “audio signal recording module” incorporates “Holophone H2-PRO (7.-channel surround sound microphones) for a microphone array” which “produces an output of multi-channel audio signals.”; Rhoads, ¶ [0749]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari, as modified by the network based speech recognition system of Alfred to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to include wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises an omnidirectional, unidirectional, or bidirectional microphone that is based on the sensing an incident sound-based motion of a diaphragm or a ribbon, or wherein at least one of the multiple microphones comprises a condenser, an electret, a dynamic, a ribbon, a carbon, or a piezoelectric microphone. The multi-microphone array and DOA processing of Rhoads, as applied to user/environmental context isolation, improves on the single microphone of Ansari/Alfred by enabling the client device to spatially isolate the user’s spoken commands and filter out background noise, such as televisions or other conversations, providing the predictable result of more robust, error-resistant voice control interface for the home automation network, as understood in light of the disclosure of Rhoads. (Rhoads, ¶ [0749]-[0751]).
Claims 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari and Alfred as applied to claim 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Ebrom.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari and Alfred fail to expressly recite wherein the appliance is a refrigerator, a freezer, a food processor, a dishwasher, a food blender, a beverage maker, a coffeemaker, or an iced-tea maker.
Ebrom teaches “components and accessories for a communicating appliance.” (Ebrom, ¶ [0003]). Regarding claim 23, Ebrom teaches wherein the appliance is a refrigerator, a freezer, a food processor, a dishwasher, a food blender, a beverage maker, a coffeemaker, or an iced-tea maker (Discloses “various components and accessories can communicate with the appliance to expand the capability, functionality, and usability of the appliance... such as a household appliance...[including] clothes washing machines, clothes dryers, ovens, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, microwave ovens, trash compactors, and countertop appliances, such as waffle makers, toasters, blenders, mixers, food processors, coffee makers, and the like.”; Ebrom, ¶ [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari, as modified by the network based speech recognition system of Alfred to incorporate the teachings of Ebrom to include wherein the appliance is a refrigerator, a freezer, a food processor, a dishwasher, a food blender, a beverage maker, a coffeemaker, or an iced-tea maker. The combination of Alfred and Ansari fail to specifically address the specific kitchen appliances described. The systems and methods for appliance intercommunication described in Ebrom include an “appliance configured to perform an operation cycle to effect a physical operation on an article,” as part of an interconnected home environment, specifically disclosing numerous household appliances which can also be interconnected, where, as applied to the gateway appliance of Ansari allows for coordination among a broader group of devices, which further improves the ability of the system to automate appliance interactions of the user, as understood in light of the disclosure of Ebrom. (Ebrom, ¶ [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Ansari and Alfred disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ansari and Alfred fail to expressly recite wherein the primary function of the appliance is associated with cleaning, wherein the appliance primary function is associated with clothes cleaning and the appliance is a washing machine, or wherein the appliance is a vacuum cleaner.
The relevance of Ebrom is described above with relation to claim 20. Regarding claim 23, Ebrom teaches wherein the primary function of the appliance is associated with cleaning, wherein the appliance primary function is associated with clothes cleaning and the appliance is a washing machine, or wherein the appliance is a vacuum cleaner (Discloses “various components and accessories can communicate with the appliance to expand the capability, functionality, and usability of the appliance... such as a household appliance...[including] clothes washing machines, clothes dryers, ovens, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, microwave ovens, trash compactors, and countertop appliances, such as waffle makers, toasters, blenders, mixers, food processors, coffee makers, and the like.”; Ebrom, ¶ [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the home automation gateway of Ansari, as modified by the network based speech recognition system of Alfred to incorporate the teachings of Ebrom to include wherein the primary function of the appliance is associated with cleaning, wherein the appliance primary function is associated with clothes cleaning and the appliance is a washing machine, or wherein the appliance is a vacuum cleaner. The combination of Alfred and Ansari fail to specifically address the specific household appliances described. The systems and methods for appliance intercommunication described in Ebrom include an “appliance configured to perform an operation cycle to effect a physical operation on an article,” as part of an interconnected home environment, specifically disclosing numerous household appliances which can also be interconnected, where, as applied to the gateway appliance of Ansari allows for coordination among a broader group of devices, which further improves the ability of the system to automate appliance interactions of the user, as understood in light of the disclosure of Ebrom. (Ebrom, ¶ [0140]-[0141]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kudo et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0065824) discloses a control method between apparatuses connected to a network, the apparatuses connected to the network, and a controller to control the apparatuses and in particular, to a method of conducting control of apparatuses on mutually different networks of two or more types in a house of a family to control the apparatuses by simple operations of users.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
