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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shoop et al.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to further require the audio output to comprise natural language content expressing an intent to cease further interaction with another computing device, where the expressed intent is recognized by the other computing device. Min does not expressly disclose the inaudible audio signal comprises natural language content. However, Shoop et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0286474) disclose a system that outputs inaudible phrases to other devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Min to output inaudible natural language content for the reasons provided in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Min fails to disclose that the output is rendered “independent of any detection of an invocation phrase by the computing device” and “the audio input is inaudible”.
However, rendering the output “independent of any detection of an invocation phrase by the computing device” is simply not recited in claim 15. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, paragraph [0018] of Min simply establishes that interactions with the device may be dependent, or “based on” the time of day. Min discloses using inaudible signals to negotiate which electronic device will respond to a particular voice command before a voice command is received (paragraph [0024]). Rendering this inaudible response prior to a verbal request for the time of day would be “based on a time of day”, because it would necessarily have to occur at a time of day prior to the verbal request.
For the reasons given above, claim 15 is anticipated by Min.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Min et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0322881, hereinafter “Min”).
In regard to claim 15 (renumbered from claim 16 as filed), Min discloses a computing device (Fig. 2, 200) comprising:
a microphone (209);
a speaker (206);
a memory storing instructions (203); and
one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (201) to:
process data indicating that an audio input is detected via the microphone of the computing device or a microphone of a separate computing device, wherein the audio input is inaudible to humans and is rendered based on a time of day by one or more speakers coupled to an additional computing device (other devices that have received inaudible acoustic signals 304 are released from performing a control operation executed in response to a voice command, paragraphs [0060-0061]; output in response to a request for the time of day, paragraph [0018]);
determine, based on processing the data, that the additional computing device is attempting to suppress responsiveness of an automated assistant that the computing device provides access to (devices output inaudible acoustic signals 304 to disable other devices, paragraphs [0052-0053]); and
responsive to determining that the additional computing device is attempting to suppress responsiveness of the automated assistant:
limit processing, by the computing device, of subsequent audio input detected by the microphone of the computing device (other devices that have received inaudible acoustic signals 304 are released from performing a control operation executed in response to a voice command, paragraphs [0060-0061]).
In regard to claim 16, Min discloses subsequent to determining that the additional computing device is attempting to suppress responsiveness of an automated assistant:
determine whether the additional computing device rendered an output responsive to subsequent audio input detected by the microphone of the computing device (operations are limited until an inaudible communication indicating that the operation has been performed is detected, paragraph [0071]).
In regard to claim 17, Min discloses the subsequent audio input represents a spoken utterance from a user (voice input, paragraph [0060]), and wherein in determining whether the additional computing device responded based on the spoken utterance from the user, the one or more processors are further operable to execute instructions to:
process, by the computing device, additional data that characterizes an indication that the additional computing device received, or responded to, the spoken utterance from the user (operations are limited until an inaudible communication indicating that the operation has been performed is detected, paragraph [0071]).
In regard to claim 18, Min discloses in response to determining the additional computer device has not responded based on the subsequent audio input:
determine that a period of time has elapsed since the subsequent audio input is received by the computing device (if the notification signal that the operation has been performed is not received, paragraph [0099]); and
process, based on determining the period of time has elapsed, the subsequent audio input (a different device performs the operation, paragraph [0099]).
In regard to claim 19, Min discloses in determining whether the additional computing device responded based on the subsequent audio input, one or more of the processors are further operable to execute instructions to:
receive an indication from the additional computing device that the additional computing device has responded or will respond (an inaudible communication indicating that the operation has been performed is detected, paragraph [0071]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, in view of Shoop et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0286474, hereinafter “Shoop”).
In regard to claim 1, Min discloses a computing device (Fig. 2, 200) comprising:
a microphone (209);
a speaker (206);
a memory storing instructions (203); and
one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (201) to:
cause, independent of any detection of an invocation phrase by the computing device, the speaker to render an audio output expressing an intent to cease further interaction with another computing device that is inaudible to a human and that is audibly detectable by a microphone of another computing device (Fig. 3, devices output inaudible acoustic signals 304, paragraphs [0052-0053]; the inaudible acoustic signals 304 are output before a voice command is received, paragraph [0024]), wherein responsive to the audio output being detected by the microphone of the other computing device, and the expressed intent being recognized by the other computing device, the other computing device limits processing of audio data that is detected by the microphone of the other computing device (other devices that have received the inaudible acoustic signals 304 are released from performing a control operation executed in response to a voice command, paragraphs [0060-0061]);
subsequent to causing the computing device to render the audio output:
identify, by the computing device, an audible input that is detectable by the computing device and the other computing device (a voice command 301 is spoken by a user and received by each of a plurality of electronic devices, paragraphs [0048-0049]); and
cause, by the computing device, an automated assistant to initialize performance of the one or more actions responsive to the audible input (one of the plurality of electronic devices performs the control operation in response to the voice command, paragraphs [0060-0061]).
Although Min discloses the audio output expresses an intent to cease further interaction with another computing device, Min does not expressly disclose the audio output comprises natural language content.
Shoop discloses a method comprising rendering an audio output comprising natural language content that is inaudible to a human (an inaudible phrase, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize natural language content inaudible to a human, because it would allow the system to use the same natural language processing functions to decode both the inaudible signal as well as the audible input, thus eliminating the need for a separate inaudible audio decoder.
In regard to claim 3, Min discloses one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
prior to causing the speaker to render the audio output (prior to rendering “the audio output”, i.e. the audio output that releases the other device from performance of one or more actions, device discovery is performed using inaudible audio, paragraph [0056]):
determine that the computing device is in an environment and that the other computing device is also in the environment (devices within a limited distance are discovered, paragraph [0077]),
wherein causing the speaker to render the audio output is based on determining that the other computing device is also in the environment (“the audio output” is subsequently based on the discovered devices, paragraphs [0081-0083]).
In regard to claim 6, Min discloses one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
determine whether the other computing device or a separate computing device is rendering a separate output in furtherance of causing the computing to be unresponsive to audible input (each of the plurality of devices communicate with each other using the inaudible signals to negotiate which device will respond, paragraph [0052]).
In regard to claim 8, Min discloses the processing of the audio data by the other computing device that is limited includes invocation phrase detection processing (trigger phrases are limited by the system, paragraphs [0017-0018]).
In regard to claim 9, Min discloses the processing of the audio data by the other computing device that is limited includes speech to text processing (voice-to-text conversion, paragraph [0033]).
In regard to claim 10, Min discloses the processing of the audio data by the other computing device that is limited includes transmitting the audio data to a remote server (voice-to-text conversion performed with a remote server, paragraph [0033]).
In regard to claim 11, Min discloses the processing of audio data by the other computing device is limited during an entire duration that the audio output is detected at the other computing device (operations are limited until an inaudible communication indicating that the operation has been performed is detected, paragraph [0071]).
In regard to claim 12 (renumbered from claim 13 as filed), Min discloses causing the speaker to render the audio output is based on a time of day (output in response to a request for the time of day, paragraph [0018]).
In regard to claim 13 (renumbered from claim 14 as filed), Min discloses causing the speaker to render the audio output is based on size or occupancy of an environment in which the computing device is located (inaudible sounds are transmitted according to the desired size of the environment, paragraphs [0075-0076]).
In regard to claim 14 (renumbered from claim 15 as filed), Min discloses one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
determine a property of one or more other devices, including the other computing device (hardware capabilities of other devices are determined, paragraph [0066]),
wherein causing the speaker to render the audio output is based on the property (the inaudible signal negotiations are output based on the device hardware capabilities, paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, in view of Shoop, and further in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0345422, hereinafter “Yang”).
In regard to claim 2, Min discloses the other computing devices provide access to the automated assistant or to another automated assistant (paragraph [0101]), but does not specifically disclose causing the speaker to render the audio output is based on determining the other computing device provides access to the automated assistant or another automated assistant.
Yang discloses a computing device that determines that the other computing device provides access to the automated assistant or another automated assistant (a first electronic device determines if another electronic device is a master device, paragraph [0133]),
wherein disabling the other computing device is based on determining the other computing device provides access to the automated assistant or another automated assistant (if the device is a slave to the master device, speech input processing is disabled; otherwise, the device negotiates with the other device to determine whether to disable speech input processing, paragraph [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the speaker to render the audio output based on determining the other computing device provides access to the automated assistant or another automated assistant prior to causing the speaker to render the audio output, because it would allow devices associated with the same automated assistant to be controlled by a master device, as suggested by Yang (paragraph [0129]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, in view of Shoop, and further in view of Shoop et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,522,619, hereinafter “Shoop 2”).
In regard to claim 4, Min does not disclose in causing the speaker to render the audio output one or more of the processors are to select, based on a characteristic of the environment, a frequency of a signal and cause the frequency to be embodied by the audio output.
Shoop 2 discloses a system for causing devices to ignore speech commands using inaudible signals, wherein for a plurality of devices within an environment, in causing the speaker to render the audio output one or more of the processors are to select, based on a characteristic of the environment, a frequency of a signal and cause the frequency to be embodied by the audio output (Fig. 3, a first device 315A transmits inaudible signals in response to receiving a voice input, column 7, lines 50-61; the inaudible signals are at different frequencies, specific to the devices within the same environment, column 7, lines 38-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a frequency of a signal and cause the frequency to be embodied by the audio output, because it would allow specific devices or device types to be individually controlled to limit processing of an input signal, thus allowing greater flexibility, as suggested by Shoop 2 (column 7, lines 16-37).
In regard to claim 5, Min does not disclose in causing the speaker to render the audio output one or more of the processors are to select, based on a characteristic of the other computing device, a frequency of a signal or an irregular waveform, and cause the frequency or the irregular waveform to be embodied by the audio output.
Shoop 2 discloses a system for causing devices to ignore speech commands by rendering inaudible output, wherein in causing the speaker to render the audio output one or more of the processors are to select, based on a characteristic of the other computing device, a frequency of a signal or an irregular waveform, and cause the frequency or the irregular waveform to be embodied by the audio output (Fig. 3, a first device 315A transmits inaudible signals in response to receiving a voice input, column 7, lines 50-61; the inaudible signals are at different frequencies, specific to the devices within the same environment, column 7, lines 38-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a frequency of a signal or an irregular waveform, and cause the frequency or the irregular waveform to be embodied by the audio output, because it would allow specific devices or device types to be individually controlled to limit processing of an input signal, thus allowing greater flexibility, as suggested by Shoop 2 (column 7, lines 16-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 20 incorporates the subject matter of previously pending claim 7. As indicated in the prior Office Action, Min, Shoop, Yang, Shoop 2, and the additional prior art of record do not disclose or suggest selecting a particular frequency of the signal embodied by the particular output, based on determining the portable computing device or the separate device is rendering the separate particular output, wherein the particular frequency is different from the frequency selected when the portable computing device or the separate device is determined to not be rendering the separate particular output.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN LOUIS ALBERTALLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-3PM, 4PM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
BLA 8/3/26
/BRIAN L ALBERTALLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights