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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were submitted on 09/06/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the independent claims, the closest prior art is Ryu et al. (US 20200294503 A1), which teaches:
“A method for controlling which of multiple devices will respond to a voice-command utterance, wherein each device of the multiple devices has one or more respective microphones configured to receive audio” (par. 0076, receiving voice data from a plurality of electronic devices), the method comprising:
“at a given device of the multiple devices, (i) receiving the voice-command utterance, and (ii) determining a time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the given device” (par. 0076; ‘According to an embodiment, when receiving pieces of identical or similar voice data within a specified time range, the second processor 330 of FIG. 2 of the intelligent server 300 may identify the signal strength or time stamp information of each of the pieces of voice data.’);
“based on the determined time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the given device and the determined time of receipt of the voice-command respectively by each other device of the multiple devices, making a determination, by the given device, of whether any other device of the multiple devices received the voice-command utterance earlier than the given device” (par. 0 076; ‘The second processor 330 may analyze the voice data having relatively high signal strength and whose time stamp information is relatively earlier.’).
However, Ryu does not expressly teach:
“receiving by the given device, respectively from each other device of the multiple devices, a determined time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the other device” and “controlling, by the given device of the multiple devices, whether the given device will trigger action in response to the voice-command utterance, wherein the controlling includes (i) if the determination is negative, then, based at least on the determination, the given device triggering action in response to the voice-command utterance, and (ii) if the determination is affirmative, then, based at least on the determination, the given device forgoing triggering of action in response to the voice-command utterance.”
While there are existing prior art that teach the concept of determining which device of a plurality devices to respond to a voice command based on timestamps (e.g., Pogue et al. (US 10643609 B1), abstract; ‘A speech-processing system can engage in time synchronization between audio capture devices so that if multiple devices detect and process a same utterance, the system may determine which device is closer to a speaker of the utterance by comparing time stamp data from the multiple devices.’), the prior art, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, inter alia, receiving by a given device, respectively from each other device of multiple devices, a determined time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the other device. Therefore, the claims as a whole would be allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12118997 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both are directed to using time of receipt of voice commands to control responses. A comparison table is presented below.
Instant Application
US Patent
1. A method for controlling which of multiple devices will respond to a voice-command utterance, wherein each device of the multiple devices has one or more respective microphones configured to receive audio, the method comprising:at a given device of the multiple devices, (i) receiving the voice-command utterance, and(ii) determining a time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the given device;receiving by the given device, respectively from each other device of the multiple devices, a determined time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the other device;based on the determined time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the given device and the determined time of receipt of the voice-command respectively by each other device of the multiple devices, making a determination, by the given device, of whether any other device of the multiple devices received the voice-command utterance earlier than the given device; andcontrolling, by the given device of the multiple devices, whether the given device will trigger action in response to the voice-command utterance,wherein the controlling includes (i) if the determination is negative, then, based at least on the determination, the given device triggering action in response to the voice-command utterance, and(ii) if the determination is affirmative, then, based at least on the determination, the given device forgoing triggering of action in response to the voice-command utterance.
1. A method for controlling which of multiple devices will respond to a voice-command utterance, wherein each device of the multiple devices has one or more respective microphones configured to receive audio, the method comprising:at each given device of the multiple devices, (i) receiving the voice-command utterance through the device's one or more microphones, and (ii) determining a respective time of receipt of the voice-command utterance by the given device; exchanging with each other, by the multiple devices, their determined respective times of receipt of the voice-command utterance; based on the exchanging, determining, by each given device of the multiple devices, whether any other device of the multiple devices received the voice-command utterance earlier than the given device; andcontrolling, by each given device of the multiple devices, whether the given device will trigger action in response to the voice-command utterance,wherein the controlling includes (i) if the given device determines based on the exchanging that no other device of the multiple devices received the voice-command utterance earlier than the given device, then the given device triggering action in response to the voice-command utterance, and(ii) if the given device determines based on the exchanging that any other device of the multiple devices received the voice-command utterance earlier than the given device, then the given device forgoing triggering of action in response to the voice-command utterance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
MARK . VILLENA
Examiner
Art Unit 2658
/MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights