Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 09/03/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Compact Prosecution
Prior to issuing the final office action examiner made a phone call on 6/23/2026 to applicant attorney Mr. Jeffery Lesovitz proposing him to amend all the independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, with limitation as recited in the parent patented independent claim 1, “updating, by providing the correction of the ASR transcription as a training input to a machine learning model associated with the ASR system” Or with limitation “training, based on the plurality of voice queries for which the associated outcome was determined to be a positive outcome or negative outcome of the utterance, a machine learning model to improve transcription of voice queries.”, to overcome the pending 101 rejection.
Examiner further proposed the applicant attorney that if the pending independent claims further amended with limitation, “wherein the determining the positive outcome or the negative outcome is based at least in part on determining that a follow-up voice query was not issued and a media device associated with a particular voice query stayed tuned to a channel” along with a TD, the prosecution will be expedited with consideration for allowance instead issuing a Final office action.
Applicant attorney instead requested to have the final office action.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-28, are currently pending in the application and among them, claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, are independent claims and claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The followings are examiner response to applicant arguments:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant Argument 1: The field of ASR technology is plagued by erroneous transcriptions of speech for any number of reasons. Claim 1 seeks to improve on the problems existing in ASR technology today by actively correcting erroneous transcriptions of speech. Therefore, claim 1 clearly integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons, claim 1 is patent eligible under Section 101. In addition, independent claims 8, 15, and 22 recite features that are similar to, albeit not identical to, those recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 8, 15, and 22 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1, in addition to the features each claim recites.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner agrees with the applicant’s rational for arguments according to MPEP 2106.04(d) I, “Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);”.
According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a claim is not directed to the judicial exception if it recites additional elements that includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement. However, the pending claims lacks recitation of additional elements/components of the ASR system being improved, rather only reciting ASR system, which is to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer(ASR system) as tool to perform an abstract idea. Further reciting broadly ASR system in the claim is considered as, linking the use of judicial expectation to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, according to MPEP 2106.05, pending claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application(“The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).”).
Therefore, applicant arguments is not persuasive and the 101 rejection remain same.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant Argument 2: Skobeltsyn fails to teach "correcting, ... based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome," as recited in amended claim 1. Again, the correction requests in Skobeltsyn, which the Office describes as being used to correct the translation of the first voice query in Skobeltsyn, are neither "associated with a positive outcome" nor "based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text," as recited in amended claim 1. As a result, Skobeltsyn also fails to disclose "correcting, ... based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome," as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner Response 2: 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.
Applicant arguments are a general allegation since the applicant did not explain how the examiner interpretation of claim language with respect to a positive outcome or a negative outcome and user behavior associated a translation of a voice query and citation of the prior art teaching are different than the applicant’s claim.
Applicant argues that “correction requests in Skobeltsyn, which the Office describes as being used to correct the translation of the first voice query in Skobeltsyn, are neither "associated with a positive outcome" nor "based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text," as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner believe that applicant reference augmenting limitation is recited in claim 1 as “correcting, by the ASR system and based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome”. The examiner interpreted that limitation as ASR system correct a voice queries that had incorrect translation (negative outcome) with a voice query that had correct translation (Positive outcome). Again prior to this limitation based on the other limitation of claim 1, positive and negative outcome of voice queries translation was determined by user behaviors responsive to the voice query translation. Examiner cited reference teaching disclosed in [0015] “In a user session, the search system receives the first voice query from a user.”, and in [0028] “The recognition output is a transcription of the received first voice query.”
Examiner further cited the reference teaching of positive outcome of translation or negative outcome of translation when the user expressly uses voice prompt to identify positive or negative translation of the user voice query from the system response to the user voice query. Based on the user response (positive outcome) the system correct the incorrect translation (negative outcome) of the user voice query with user response voce query which examiner interpreted as positive translation outcome voice query to correct the negative outcome translation of the voice query. Examiner further interpreted claim limitation of “ based on user behavior associated with the translating…at least one other voice query of the plurality of voice queries that is associated with a negative outcome…with a positive outcome” as the user response to the system translation results of the user voice query saying “no I meant France.” Examiner interpretation is supported by the reference teaching of: [0030] The system receives a second voice query from the user device 306. The second voice query is received in a similar manner from the user device as the first voice query. In particular, the second voice query can be a correction query. For example, the second voice query in response to the recognition output “who is the president of friends” may be “no I meant France.” [0068] In response to the system determining that a correction request is triggered, the system determines candidate corrections to the recognition output of the first voice query (310). To form each candidate correction, an n-gram is substituted into the misrecognition of the recognition output. For example, the misrecognition [who is president of friends] can include as a candidate correction the substitution of “France” for “friends” to generate candidate correction [who is president of France]. One or more different techniques can be used to generate the candidate corrections, as described with respect to FIG. 4. [0070] Candidate corrections can be generated using a recognition from the correction request 408, i.e., the second voice query 404. In particular, a candidate correction can be obtained by substituting the misrecognition with the correction from the second voice input. For example, if the recognition output of the first voice query is “who is president of friends” and the second voice input is recognized as [no I meant France] the portion following the correction prefix [no I meant] is used as the candidate substitution n-gram into the first recognition output. In this example, the candidate substitution n-gram “France” can be substituted into the original recognition. This results in candidate corrections [who is president of France], [who is president France], [who is the France], and [who is France].
Therefore, applicant arguments that the reference “Skobeltsyn, are neither "associated with a positive outcome" nor "based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text," as recited in amended claim 1” are not persuasive and the rejection remain same.
Since applicants arguments with respect to the dependents claims are also based on the arguments of independent claims and therefore all rejection of the dependent claims will also remain same based on the examiner response to independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim 1, recites a voice query transcription correction based on mapping, user determined behavior associating positive outcome of voice query transcription, user determined behavior associating negative outcome of voice query transcription for each of a plurality of queries, which is a process and falls within a statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites(s) steps of , translating, determining, and correcting, which has no elements to preclude the steps being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the recitation of the generic computer component (ASR system), user manually writing down plurality of voice queries in a sentence/text form and based on user liking (positive) and disliking (negative) set of voice queries among the plurality of the queries, correcting the disliking queries to be as liking queries. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claim 1, only recites one additional element “ASR system”. The ASR system, recited in a at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing voice query transcription correction based on mapping, user determined behavior associating positive and/or negative voice query transcription) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the pending claims lacks recitation of improvement of ASR system components/elements, rather only reciting ASR system, which considered as to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer(ASR system) as tool to perform an abstract idea. Further recitation of ASR system in the claim, merely an indicating of the claim linking to a speech recognition technology, considered as, linking the use of judicial expectation to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims does not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving and correcting a voice query using a ASR system/device(i.e. at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device) steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, pending claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application(“The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).”).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception, using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim 1 is therefore, not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 15, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims 8, 15, and 22, recites a voice query transcription correction based on mapping user determined behavior associating positive outcome of voice query transcription with user determined behavior associating negative outcome of voice query transcription for each of a plurality of queries, which is a process and falls within a statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites(s) steps of , translating, determining, and correcting, which has no elements to preclude the steps being performed in a human mind. For example, user manually writing down plurality of voice queries in a sentence/text form and based on user liking (positive) and disliking (negative) set of voice queries among the plurality of the queries, correcting the disliking queries to be as liking queries. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claims 8, 15, and 22 only recites one additional element – using a processor of a device to perform correction of the negative outcome of voice query translation to positive outcome (for claim 8), a first to receive the voice query and a second device to perform correction of the negative outcome of voice query translation to positive outcome (for claim 15), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction when executed to perform correction of the negative outcome of voice query translation to positive outcome (claim 22). The processor, device, and computer-readable medium, recited in a at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device receiving a voice query and the processor of the same or another generic device perform the correction of voice query translation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving and correcting a voice query using a device(i.e. at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device) steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering and extra solution activity using a generic computer component. Mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-4, and which depend on independent claim 1, claims 9-11, which depend on independent claim 8, claims 16-18, which depend on independent claim 15 and claims 23-25, which depend on independent claim 22, and include all the limitation of independent claim 1, claim 8, claim 15, and claim 22, according to their dependency, are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, since the claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18, similar to independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, recite no elements to preclude the steps being performed in a human mind. For example, user determined the positive and negative outcomes of voice queries are among that the user did correct and did not correct to new one according to his liking and disliking or mentally determined that voice queries are associated with a user device associated channel change voice query of a media. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite or include any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus are not considered to be significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, which depend on claim 1, claim 12 which depend on claim 8, claim 19 which depend on claim 15, and claim 26 which depend on claim 22 and include all the limitation of claim 1, 8, 15, and 22, according to their dependency, are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claims 5, 12, 19, and 26 only recites one additional element –voice queries received via at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device. The at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device receiving a voice query) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving a voice query using a device(i.e. at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device) steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering and extra solution activity using a generic computer component. Mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 6-7, which depends on claim 1, Claims 13-14 which depends on claim 8, Claims 20-21 which depends on claim 15,and Claims 27-28 which depends on claim 22, and include all the limitation of independent claim 1, claim 8, claim 15 and claim 22, according to their dependency, are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, since the claims 6-7, 13-14, 20-21 and 27-28, similar to independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, recite no elements to preclude the steps being performed in a human mind. For example, user manually writing down the voice queries with same first portion and dislike some voice queries out of all voice queries in the written form. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite or include any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus are not considered to be significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23, and 25-28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Skobeltsyn et al.(US 2017/0270928 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: A method comprising: translating, by an automated speech recognition (ASR) system (Fig.2, search system 214 includes a voice recognition engine 254) executing on a computing device, each of a plurality of voice queries to text([0015] In response to the first voice query, the user interface 102b is presented including a display of a first recognition output generated from the first voice query in a search box 104b. [0017] In response to the second voice query, a user interface 102d is presented including a display of a second recognition output from the second voice input in a search box 104c. [0028] The system generates a recognition output 304. The recognition output is a transcription of the received first voice query. For example, a suitable speech to text technique can be used to provide voice recognition of the first voice query and convert it into a recognized text output.); determining, by the ASR system and based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, one or more voice queries (second voice query) of the plurality of voice queries that are associated with a positive outcome (For example, the second voice query in response to the recognition output “who is the president of friends” may be “no I meant France.); determining, by the ASR system and based on the user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, at least one other voice query (first voice query) of the plurality of voice queries that is associated with a negative outcome (For example, the first voice query “who is the president of France” may be recognized as [who is the president of friends]); and correcting, based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, by the ASR system and the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome (For example, if the recognition output of the first voice query is “who is president of friends” and the second voice input is recognized as [no I meant France] the portion following the correction prefix [no I meant] is used as the candidate substitution n-gram into the first recognition output. In this example, the candidate substitution n-gram “France” can be substituted into the original recognition. ) ([0028] The system generates a recognition output 304. The recognition output is a transcription of the received first voice query. For example, a suitable speech to text technique can be used to provide voice recognition of the first voice query and convert it into a recognized text output. The recognition output can be displayed, for example, to indicate the system's recognition of the first voice query. The user can then examine the presented recognition output to determine whether the system correctly recognized the first voice query. For example, the first voice query “who is the president of France” may be recognized as [who is the president of friends]. Here the word “France” was misrecognized as “friends.” [0030] The system receives a second voice query from the user device 306. The second voice query is received in a similar manner from the user device as the first voice query. In particular, the second voice query can be a correction query. For example, the second voice query in response to the recognition output “who is the president of friends” may be “no I meant France.” [0067] In response to the system determining that a correction request is not triggered, the system sends the recognition output to the client device and provides one or more search results responsive to a query corresponding to the recognition output (316). [0068] In response to the system determining that a correction request is triggered, the system determines candidate corrections to the recognition output of the first voice query (310). To form each candidate correction, an n-gram is substituted into the misrecognition of the recognition output. For example, the misrecognition [who is president of friends] can include as a candidate correction the substitution of “France” for “friends” to generate candidate correction [who is president of France]. One or more different techniques can be used to generate the candidate corrections, as described with respect to FIG. 4. [0070] Candidate corrections can be generated using a recognition from the correction request 408, i.e., the second voice query 404. In particular, a candidate correction can be obtained by substituting the misrecognition with the correction from the second voice input. For example, if the recognition output of the first voice query is “who is president of friends” and the second voice input is recognized as [no I meant France] the portion following the correction prefix [no I meant] is used as the candidate substitution n-gram into the first recognition output. In this example, the candidate substitution n-gram “France” can be substituted into the original recognition. This results in candidate corrections [who is president of France], [who is president France], [who is the France], and [who is France].).
Regarding Claims 2, and 23, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the positive outcome or the negative outcome is based at least in part on determining that a follow-up voice query (voice query with correction request trigger) was not issued or determining that a device associated with a particular voice query stayed tuned to a channel (See rejection of claim 1 and [0067] In response to the system determining that a correction request is not triggered, the system sends the recognition output to the client device and provides one or more search results responsive to a query corresponding to the recognition output (316). [0070] Candidate corrections can be generated using a recognition from the correction request 408, i.e., the second voice query 404. [0072] In the above example, additional hypotheses for recognizing the second voice input of “no I said France” can include [no I said Franz], [no I said France], [no I sat France], [noah sad friends] and so on. These hypotheses, generated e.g., from speech-to-text recognition, are used, as described with the recognition from the correction request 408, to generate candidate corrections by substituting n-grams of the various hypotheses into the misrecognized output for the first voice query including, for example, [who is the president of Franz], [who is the president of France], etc.).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of voice queries are associated with at least one of a particular user, a particular premises associated with one or more users, or a particular group of users (See rejection of claim 1 and [0022] The search system 214 includes a voice recognition engine 254. The voice recognition engine receives the voice query 210 and transcribes the voice query to a recognized query, e.g., using suitable text-to-speech techniques. In some implementations, the recognized query is returned to the client device 204 for presentation to the user 202. Additionally, the recognized query is provided to the search engine 230.).
Regarding Claims 5 ,12,19 and 26, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of voice queries are received via at least one of a remote control, a television, or a mobile device (See rejection of claim 1 and [0027] The system receives a first voice query from a user device 302. For example, a search user interface of the user device can include a microphone indicator. When selected by the user, a microphone of the user device captures voice input from the user. The voice input is then transmitted by the user device to the system. The first voice query 302 can be, for example, “who is the president of France?” [0028] The recognition output is provided to the user device, for example, for display in the search interface. [0091] Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device, e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive, to name just a few. [0093] The systems described in this specification, or portions of them, can each be implemented as an apparatus, method, or electronic system that may include one or more processing devices and memory to store executable instructions to perform the operations described in this specification. [0094] To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer.).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20 and 27, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The device of claim 8, wherein each one of the plurality of voice queries comprises at least a same first portion of an utterance (See rejection of claim 1, specifically [0033] 1. Repeating a part of the query containing the misrecognized word(s): [0034] Query 1: [who is president of friends] [0035] Query 2: [president of France] [0036] 2. Using a correction command followed by a part of the query containing the misrecognized word(s): [0037] Query 1: [who is president of friends] [0038] Query 2: [No, France] or [0039] Query 2: [I said president of France]).
Regarding Claims 7 ,14 , 21 and 28, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the positive outcome is associated with a correct translation of a voice query to text, and wherein the negative outcome is associated with an incorrect translation of a voice query to text (See rejection of claim 1, specifically [0067] In response to the system determining that a correction request is not triggered, the system sends the recognition output to the client device and provides one or more search results responsive to a query corresponding to the recognition output (316). [0068] In response to the system determining that a correction request is triggered, the system determines candidate corrections to the recognition output of the first voice query (310). To form each candidate correction, an n-gram is substituted into the misrecognition of the recognition output. For example, the misrecognition [who is president of friends] can include as a candidate correction the substitution of “France” for “friends” to generate candidate correction [who is president of France]. [0070] Candidate corrections can be generated using a recognition from the correction request 408, i.e., the second voice query 404. In particular, a candidate correction can be obtained by substituting the misrecognition with the correction from the second voice input. For example, if the recognition output of the first voice query is “who is president of friends” and the second voice input is recognized as [no I meant France] the portion following the correction prefix [no I meant] is used as the candidate substitution n-gram into the first recognition output. In this example, the candidate substitution n-gram “France” can be substituted into the original recognition. This results in candidate corrections [who is president of France], [who is president France], [who is the France], and [who is France].).
Regarding Claims 8 and 22, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: A device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to ([0093] Control of the various systems described in this specification, or portions of them, can be implemented in a computer program product that includes instructions that are stored on one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media, and that are executable on one or more processing devices. The systems described in this specification, or portions of them, can each be implemented as an apparatus, method, or electronic system that may include one or more processing devices and memory to store executable instructions to perform the operations described in this specification.): translate each of a plurality of voice queries to text; determine, based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, one or more voice queries of the plurality of voice queries that are associated with a positive outcome; determine, based on the user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, at least one other voice query of the plurality of voice queries that is associated with a negative outcome; and correct, based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: The device of claim 8, wherein causing the device to determine the positive outcome or the negative outcome is based at least in part on a determination that a follow-up query was not issued (See rejection of claim 2) or based at least in part on a determination that a media device associated with a particular voice query stayed tuned to a channel.
Regarding Claim 15, Skobeltsyn et al. teach: A system comprising: a first device (a user device 302 ) configured to receive a voice query; and a second device configured to ( [0020] A user 202 can interact with a search system 214 through a client device 204. For example, the client 204 can be a computer coupled to the search system 214 through a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), e.g., the Internet. In some implementations, the search system 214 and the client device 204 can be one machine. For example, a user can install a desktop search application on the client device 204. The client device 204 will generally include a random access memory (RAM) 206 and a processor 208. [0027] The system receives a first voice query from a user device 302. [0028] The system generates a recognition output 304. The recognition output is a transcription of the received first voice query.): translate each of a plurality of voice queries to text; determine, based on user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, one or more voice queries of the plurality of voice queries that are associated with a positive outcome; determine, based on the user behavior associated with the translating each of the plurality of voice queries to text, at least one other voice query of the plurality of voice queries that is associated with a negative outcome; and correct, based on the one or more voice queries associated with the positive outcome, the translation of the at least one other voice query associated with the negative outcome (See rejection of claim 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skobeltsyn et al. in view of Sugiura (US 2022/0043627 A1).
Skobeltsyn et al. teach: determining the positive outcome or the negative outcome is based at least in part on determining that a follow-up voice query (voice query with correction request trigger) was not issued (See rejection of claim 1 and [0067] In response to the system determining that a correction request is not triggered, the system sends the recognition output to the client device and provides one or more search results responsive to a query corresponding to the recognition output (316). [0070] Candidate corrections can be generated using a recognition from the correction request 408, i.e., the second voice query 404. [0072] In the above example, additional hypotheses for recognizing the second voice input of “no I said France” can include [no I said Franz], [no I said France], [no I sat France], [noah sad friends] and so on. These hypotheses, generated e.g., from speech-to-text recognition, are used, as described with the recognition from the correction request 408, to generate candidate corrections by substituting n-grams of the various hypotheses into the misrecognized output for the first voice query including, for example, [who is the president of Franz], [who is the president of France], etc.).
Skobeltsyn et al. do not teach for claims 3 and 17: determining the positive outcome or the negative outcome is associated with at least one of a channel tuned to or a tune-in duration.
Sugiura teaches: determining the positive outcome or the negative outcome is associated with at least one of a channel tuned to or a tune-in duration ([0043] In the example in FIG. 1, a user U utters a phrase of “NNN” that is a name of a channel. The information processing apparatus 100 recognizes the speech uttered by the user, searches for a channel on the basis of the phrase of “NNN”, and switches to a single channel, such as “NNN General”, that is selected from search results. [0045] Furthermore, after automatically selecting a channel from the search results and switching to the channel, the information processing apparatus 100 displays, on the screen, item images 30 (30a to 30d) indicating a name or the like of each of the channels (selection items) based on the search results. If the channel that is automatically selected by the information processing apparatus 100 meets an expectation of the user, a problem can hardly occur, but if the channel is different from a channel requested by the user, it is expected that the user may immediately reselect a channel. Therefore, the information processing apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment displays the item images 30a to 30d that indicate the search results (for example, names of retrieved channels) in order of priority or the like, and makes it possible to support speech input when the user changes a channel. For example, the item images 30a to 30d may be displayed for a predetermined time (for example, for several seconds) and may be deleted without any operation when a time-out occurs after a lapse of the predetermined time. The user is able to refer to reading items displayed on the item images 30, input speech of a more accurate name again, and switch to a desired channel (for example, “NNN 1”, “NNN AA”, or the like that is a different option for selection, instead of the automatically selected “NNN General”).) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made for Skobeltsyn et al. to include the teaching of Sugiura above in order for a user to be able to read names of retrieved channels displayed on the item images, to support more accurate speech input when the user changes a channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record HAO et al.(CN 109671434 A) teach: A Voice Device And Self Learning And Speech Recognition Method (This invention belongs to artificial intelligent technology field, claims a speech recognition technology, and specifically claims a phonetic device and self-learning speech recognition method.).
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 MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, EST (IFP).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paras Shah can be reached on 571-270-1650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights