DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module configured to transmit” in the claims.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,002,259. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a gate-keeping module wherein all data received by the communications module passes through the gate-keeping module while a gatekeeping function is disabled, wherein no data passes through the communications module while the gatekeeping function is enabled.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US-20190074002), and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20190332680).
a. Referring to claims 1, 11, and 15:
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 15, Christopher teaches a listening device comprising: a sensor configured to detect user input (Para 32…. microphone); a primary processor (Para 23… controller); and a gate-keeping pre-processor, disposed between the sensor and the primary processor, configured to: block communications between the sensor and the primary processor when a gate-keeping function is enabled (Para 32 and 33… security component that prevents the microphone from relaying data through the communication interface when the security function is enabled); receive, via an exclusive input lead from the sensor, environmental audio, wherein the environmental audio comprises a first portion and a second portion (Para 34…. voice command); analyze, the first portion to determine whether the first portion comprises a command (Para 34… analysis to recognize disable or power-off command); based on a determination that the first portion comprises the command, disable the gate-keeping function (Para 34…. disable the security component); provide the second portion of the environmental audio to the primary processor (Para 26 and 27… controller receives command); and allow communications between the sensor and the primary processor while the gate-keeping function is disabled (Para 34, 20 and 21…. allow communication while the security component is disabled).
Christopher teaches the analysis of the audio but fails to explicitly teach the analysis using artificial intelligence. However, analyzing audio signals using artificial intelligence is well known in the art and taught by Wang in Para 61…. (audio analysis using artificial intelligence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Christopher by analyzing the audio signal using artificial intelligence as taught by Wang for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the system to understand multiple audio signals and determine intent of the audio.
a. Referring to claims 2 and 16:
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, further comprising: a communications module configured to transmit the second portion of the environmental audio to a remote server after the second portion of the environmental audio has been processed by the primary processor (Para 20…. bi-directional communication).
a. Referring to claims 3 and 17:
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 2, further comprising: an output configured to cause a response, received from the remote server, to be conveyed to a user of the listening device (Para 20…. bi-directional communication involving the user of the device).
a. Referring to claims 4 and 18:
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, further comprising: an output configured to cause a response to the second portion of the environmental audio to be conveyed to a user of the listening device (Para 20…. bi-directional communication involving the user of the device).
a. Referring to claims 5, 12, and 19:
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, wherein the gate-keeping pre-processor is configured to: re-enable the gate-keeping function after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed (Para 48…. automated enabling/disabling of the security component).
a. Referring to claims 6, 13, and 20:
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, wherein the gate-keeping pre-processor is configured to: re-enable the gate-keeping function based on a determination that a second user input comprises a second command (Para 34… turning on the security component based on a second command).
a. Referring to claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 6, wherein the command and the second command are the same command (Para 34…. voice command).
a. Referring to claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, further comprising: one or more indicators configured to provide an indication of whether the gate-keeping function is enabled or disabled (Para 34…. enabling/disabling the security function).
a. Referring to claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 8, wherein the one or more indicators comprises light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Para 34 and 48…. power ON/OFF indicator).
a. Referring to claims 10 and 14:
Regarding claims 10 and 14, the combination of Christopher and Wang teaches the listening device of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence comprises Natural Language Processing (Para 73…. natural language processing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/
Prosecution Insights