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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, 23-25, 28-30, 33, 41, 43, 45, 58, and 59 are currently pending in this application. Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 13-22, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34-40, 42, 44, 46-57, and 60-62 are canceled.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12, drawn to a device configured for transmitting a command signal as an instruction device, classified in 340/4.3 for communications and program control.
II. Claims 23-25, 28-30, 33, 41, 43, 45, and 58-59, drawn to a device configured for operating based on a received command as an instructed device, classified in 700/1 for generic control system. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Invention I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case,
Invention I recites a device (e.g., instructing device or transceiver) including “an interface (14) configured for transmitting the command signal (12); and a control unit (16) configured for providing an instruction signal comprising an instruction (18) associated to a target behaviour of the instructed device (50), wherein the device is configured for accessing/using contextual information (22) indicating a context of the command chain (40) and for generating a command (24) from the instruction based on the contextual information (22); wherein the command (24) is associated with an operation of the instructed device (50); or wherein the device is configured for providing contextual information (22) indicating a context of the command chain (40) for interpretation of a command belonging to the command chain (40); and wherein the device is configured for transmitting the command signal (12) comprising the command (24) using the interface” and
Invention II recites a device (e.g., an instructed device or receiver) “configured for operating based on a received command as an instructed device of a command chain (40), the device comprising: an interface (14) configured for receiving a command signal (12) comprising the command, wherein the device is configured for accessing/using contextual information (22) indicating a context of the command chain (40) and for generating a setting (52) of the device from the command based on the contextual information (22); wherein the setting (52) is associated with an operation of the device; and wherein the device is configured for implementing and/or executing the setting (52)”
Inventions I and II do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants as recited, and Invention II has separate utility such as a smart device (e.g., Amazon Alexa or Google Gemini). See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: Separate classification (See separate classification as shown above), separate status in the art, and/or a different field of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Wei Chung on July 31, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention II, claims 23-25, 28-30, 33, 41, 43, 45, and 58-59. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. As noted to Applicant during the interview, claims 43, 45, 58, and 59 are objected under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form with multiple dependent claims (independent claim 1 and independent claim 23). Because a claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, claims 43, 45, 58, and 59 will be examined based on subject matter of the elected Invention II and not of the nonelected Invention I.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Application No. EP 22161028.0 filed on 03/09/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 09/09/2024, 12/10/2024/, 02/03/2026, and 05/14/2026 have been revied and are considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
(Specification page 15, line 13) FIG. 5 is said to depict a simplified system 500, 500 is not a reference character in FIG. 5. 50 is the reference character in FIG. 5 but 50 also corresponds with the instructed/controlled device in other figures and in the specification. FIG. 5 should be 500 instead of 50.
(Specification page 25, line 33) “instructions 18” and “instructed device 18” are two different components using the same reference character. Based on other figures and in the specification, instructions should be 18 and instructed device should be 50.
(Specification page 46, line 10) FIG. 24 is described with the controlling device having reference character 108. This reference character is not in FIG. 24, the controlling device in FIG. 24 has no corresponding reference character.
(Specification page 46, line 33) FIG. 29 is described with a further controlled device having reference character 508. The further controlled device uses reference character 509 in FIG. 29
(Specification page 49, line 10) Instructing device and instructed device both use the reference character 50. Instructing device should use the reference character 10 while the instructed device should use the reference character 50.
(Specification page 18, lines 12 and 26; page 49 lines 14-15 and 17-18; page 53 lines 30-31) Reference 40 as shown in fig.8, fig.10, and fig.11a is defined as "a context of the command chain". Figs. 8, 10 and 11a as disclosed in the specification is a system (hardware) including a first device (instructing device 10) and a second device (instructed device 50). It is improper to have reference 40 (defined as "a context of the command chain") as part of figs. 8, 10, and 11a because "the context of the command chain" is interpreted as some the order of command or instruction between the first device and the second device. Thus, reference 40 is not interpreted as a hardware component that includes the first device and the second device.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Specification page 37, lines 8-9) “[Hint to inventors: 5.2.5 d. of invention disclosure; might be considered unclear in this broad formulation]” it is unclear and improper what this means as “5.2.5 d.” is not mentioned anywhere else in the specification.
(Specification page 37, lines 11-12) “[Hint to inventors: 5.2.5 e. of invention disclosure; might be considered unclear in this broad formulation” it is unclear and improper what this means as “5.2.5 e.” is not mentioned anywhere else in the specification. The brackets “[]” are also incomplete.
(Specification page 44, line 3) “from fist to second device”– “fist” should be first
(Specification page 46, line 5 and 10) “device108” should have a space between device and 108
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Claim 43 depends upon claim 1 and claim 23. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 43 not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 45, 58, and 59 depended upon Claim 43 which has not been further treated on the merits so these claims are also not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 24, 41, and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Claim 24) Would be clearer with the use of a better transition. For example, as shown in the [], “The device of claim 23, [wherein the device is] being adapted for operating in a wireless communication system and to receive the command signal from another device of the wireless communication system.”
(Claim 41) Would be clearer, as shown in the [] “The device of claim 23, wherein the device comprises a control unit configured for implementing and/or executing the setting and for locking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command; or [wherein the control unit is configured] for unlocking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command.”
(Claim 45) The system of claim 43, further comprising a contextual information provider adapted to provide contextual information (22) for the instructed device (50) and/or for the instructing device (10); whilst being not part of the command chain (40). The use of a “;” within one limitation is grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, it is unclear if it’s the instructing device (10) or the instructed device (50) that is not part of the command chain (40) (i.e., “whilst being not part of the command chain (40)”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are:
An interface (14) configured for receiving a command signal (12) (recited in Claim 23; disclosed as it may be wired and/or wireless and/or optical communications with an example being an antenna, See specification page 17, lines 31-36).
a control unit configured for implementing and/or executing the setting and for locking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command; or for unlocking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command (recited in Claim 41; disclosed as a processor, see specification page 23, lines 2-3).
A command parser unit (54) configured for accessing/using the contextual information (22) and for generating the setting (52) of the device (recited in Claim 25, disclosed as may form a dedicated or common part with a system, process or processor, see specification page 23, lines 5-8).
A device configured for operating based on a received command as an instructed Device (recited in claim 23, disclosed as may form a UE, a IoT-device, or an instructed base station or a different entity, e.g., a reconfigurable intelligent surface, RIS, see specification page 21, lines 21-24).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25 and 28 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 limitation “a command parser unit” (Claim 25) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose a detailed algorithm (step-by-step) plan for the command parser unit and functions that invoked 112f. Thus, the claimed limitations are not supported by the specification and are not in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 28 recites the following underlining limitations that have insufficient antecedent basis:
The device of claim 23, wherein the device is adapted for accessing a first digital twin, DT (95), of the instructing device and for deriving, based on the first DT (95), at least a part of at least one of the contextual information (22), the setting (52) and the operation; and /or wherein the device is adapted for accessing a second digital twin, DT (95), of the device and for deriving, based on the second DT (95), at least a part of at least one of the contextual information (22), the setting and the operation.
The term “a part of” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a part of” follow by “at least one of the contextual information, the setting and the operation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which part or degree of “at least one of the contextual information, the setting or the operation” is being derived.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 41, 43, 45, 58, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OLSON (US-20200312318-A1).
Regarding Claim 23, OLSON teaches a device (electronic device 50, figs.1-3) configured for operating based on a received command as an instructed device of a command chain (receive voice command via voice agent 205, figs.1-3 and [0033-0034]), the device comprising:
an interface configured for receiving a command signal comprising the command (the electronic device 50 includes a voice user interface 200, fig.1 and [0033,0037]; configured to control the number and the type of actions that the electronic device 50 can be invoked/triggered to perform via voice commands based on contextual information such as, but not limited to, a context of a user 30, a context of the electronic device 50 such as current state (i.e., current configuration), an environment of the user 30 and/or the electronic device 50 such as time, day, temperature, weather, ambient lighting, location, etc, [0040]), wherein the device is configured for accessing/using contextual information indicating a context of the command chain (the electronic device 50 can be invoked/triggered to perform via voice commands based on contextual information such as, but not limited to, a context of a user 30, a context of the electronic device 50 such as current state (i.e., current configuration), an environment of the user 30 and/or the electronic device 50 such as time, day, temperature, weather, ambient lighting, location, etc., [0040]; “context of the command chain” is interpreted that the voice commands are continuous from a first voice command follows by a request, [0107]) and for generating a setting of the device from the command based on the contextual information; wherein the setting is associated with an operation of the device; and wherein the device is configured for implementing and/or executing the setting (the voice agent 205 [of the electronic device 50, fig.1] the voice agent 205 determines contextual information relevant to the voice command, such as microwave settings necessary to perform the voice command. For example, based on the recipe and/or one or more online data sources, the voice agent 205 determines microwave settings such as temperature and amount of time necessary to defrost the frozen chicken, and triggers/invokes the smart microwave M to start in accordance with the microwave settings and display visual feedback via a control surface of the smart microwave M, wherein the visual feedback is indicative of the microwave settings. The user 30 can review the microwave settings displayed, and make adjustments, if necessary, via voice interaction (e.g., issuing a voice command) or touch interaction (e.g., interacting with the control surface), [0099-0101]).
Regarding Claim 25, OLSON teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the device comprises a command parser unit (the voice agent 205) configured for accessing/using the contextual information and for generating the setting of the device (the voice agent 205 [of the electronic device 50, fig.1] the voice agent 205 determines contextual information relevant to the voice command, such as microwave settings necessary to perform the voice command. For example, based on the recipe and/or one or more online data sources, the voice agent 205 determines microwave settings such as temperature and amount of time necessary to defrost the frozen chicken, and triggers/invokes the smart microwave M to start in accordance with the microwave settings and display visual feedback via a control surface of the smart microwave M, wherein the visual feedback is indicative of the microwave settings. The user 30 can review the microwave settings displayed, and make adjustments, if necessary, via voice interaction (e.g., issuing a voice command) or touch interaction (e.g., interacting with the control surface), [0099-0101]).
Regarding Claim 29, OLSON teaches the device of claim 23 wherein the setting relate to a control of a subsystem of the device; wherein the device is configured for determining a plurality of setting for a same or different subsystems; the plurality of setting describing a simultaneous or sequential control for the same or different subsystems as a solution to follow the received command (As shown in FIG. 7, the user 30 starts the smart oven O via a voice command that comprises a request to bake at specified settings (e.g., 450 degrees for an hour, then keep warm). The voice command is simple, removing a need for the user 30 to explicitly utter a wake word to start the smart oven O. The voice agent 205 of the smart oven O determines the request is intended for the smart oven O, triggers/invokes the smart oven O to perform the request, and displays visual feedback to the user 30 via a control surface of the smart oven O, wherein the visual feedback is indicative of the settings. If the voice agent 205 of the smart oven O is still in the listening mode (i.e., a listening window for the voice agent 205 has not yet elapsed), the user 30 can issue another voice command that comprises a request to adjust the settings, FIG. 7 and [0096])
Regarding Claim 30, OLSON teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the device is configured for deriving, from the command a missing information with respect to a valid setting of the device; and to derive, from the contextual information, the missing information to obtain at least one valid setting (the voice agent 205 is configured to determine contextual information relevant to the statement based on a current state of each of the multiple electronic devices 50 (e.g., which of the multiple electronic devices 50 is a contributing factor to the statement). For example, as shown in FIG. 8, if a current state of the smart oven O is that the smart oven O is baking, the voice agent 205 of the smart home device H determines that the current state of the smart oven O is relevant to the statement, and requests clarification from the user 30 by generating and outputting a speech response in the kitchen for the user 30 that inquires whether it should lower the temperature of the smart oven O, FIG. 8 and [0104])
Regarding Claim 33, OLSON teaches the device of claim 23, further comprising an ambiguity processor configured for evaluating an ambiguity of the command with respect to the contextual information to obtain ambiguity information (In one embodiment, a voice agent 205 operating in multiple electronic devices 50 in multiple locations (e.g., different rooms) utilizes contextual information, confirmations, and clarifications to resolve multi-device disambiguation, FIG.8 and [0103]; ); wherein the ambiguity processor is configured for providing the ambiguity information to an instructing device from which the command signal and/or to an entity of the device to cause the entity to provide supplementary contextual information (For example, as shown in FIG. 8, if a current state of the smart oven O is that the smart oven O is baking, the voice agent 205 of the smart home device H determines that the current state of the smart oven O is relevant to the statement, and requests clarification from the user 30 by generating and outputting a speech response in the kitchen for the user 30 that inquires whether it should lower the temperature of the smart oven O. As shown in FIG. 8, the user 30 responds to the voice agent 205 via a second voice command that clarifies the user 30 feels hot. In response to this clarification from the user 30, the voice agent 205 of the smart home device H determines contextual information relevant to the clarification based on a current state of each of the multiple electronic devices 50 other than the smart oven O (e.g., which of the multiple electronic devices 50 other than the smart oven O is a contributing factor to the clarification), FIG. 8 and [0104] – [0105]).
Regarding Claim 41, OLSON teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the device comprises a control unit configured for implementing and/or executing the setting and for locking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command; or for unlocking at least one function of the device or system response of the command chain based on the command (As another example, if the electronic device 50 comprises a smart light in a room and the voice agent 205 is activated in response to sensor-based contextual information indicating that a user 30 has just entered the room (e.g., detected via at least one sensor unit 70, such as a motion sensor), the language interpreter 260 is configured to select a vocabulary to utilize during a listening window (e.g., a brief period of time after the user 30 has entered the room) that is reduced/smaller compared to one or more other vocabularies available, wherein the selected vocabulary includes only a restricted/reduced set of voice commands the user 30 is permitted to make. For example, the smart light will only turn on if the user 30 issues the voice command “Lights on”. This restriction prevents the smart light from automatically turning on when the user 30 enters the room after bed time and reduces a likelihood of disturbing any sleeping occupants in the room. By comparison, if the voice agent 205 is activated in response to a wake word activation instead, the language interpreter 260 is configured to select a vocabulary to utilize during a listening window that is larger compared to a vocabulary utilized in response to a physical event activation, [0071])
Regarding Claim 43/231, OLSON teaches a system (fig.1) comprising:
a device of claim 23 as an instructed device (electronic device 50, figs.1-3).
Regarding Claim 45/43/23, OLSON teaches further comprising a contextual information provider adapted to provide contextual information for the instructed device (determines contextual information relevant to the voice command, such as microwave settings necessary to perform the voice command. For example, based on the recipe and/or one or more online data sources, the voice agent 205 determines microwave settings such as temperature and amount of time necessary to defrost the frozen chicken, and triggers/invokes the smart microwave M to start in accordance with the microwave settings and display visual feedback via a control surface of the smart microwave M, wherein the visual feedback is indicative of the microwave settings. The user 30 can review the microwave settings displayed, and make adjustments, if necessary, via voice interaction (e.g., issuing a voice command) or touch interaction (e.g., interacting with the control surface), [0099-0101])
Regarding claim 58/43/23,
Regarding claim 59/58/43/23, .
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 24/23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OLSON (US-20200312318-A1) in view of UPPALA (US-20160378080-A1).
Regarding claim 24/23, OLSON teaches being adapted for operating in a wireless communication system (electronic devices 50 over a communications network/connection 40 (e.g., a wireless connection such as a Wi-Fi connection or a cellular data connection, a wired connection, or a combination of the two), [0045]) and to receive the command signal (configured to control the number and the type of actions that the electronic device 50 can be invoked/triggered to perform via voice commands based on contextual information such as, but not limited to, a context of a user 30, a context of the electronic device 50 such as current state (i.e., current configuration), an environment of the user 30 and/or the electronic device 50 such as time, day, temperature, weather, ambient lighting, location, etc, [0040]).
OLSON does not appear to teach receiving the command signal from another device of the wireless communication system.
However, it is known by UPPALA (US-20160378080-A1) to teach of a device (UPPALA: Home Automation Controller 104 and/or Home Automation Devices 106, fig.1) receiving the command signal from another device of the wireless communication system (UPPALA: receiving the home automation command based on ‘the computing device 102 may, for example, send the home automation command to the home automation controller 104 and/or to one or more home automation devices 106’, FIG.1 and [0045]; and based on ‘the computing device 102 may transmit a command or otherwise control the home automation controller 104 and/or one or more appropriate home automation devices 106’, FIG. 1 and [0058]; The communication circuitry 128 of the computing device 102…configured to use any one or more communication technology (e.g., wireless or wired communications) and associated protocols (e.g., Ethernet, Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi®, WiMAX, Zigbee, Zwave, etc.) to effect such communication, FIG. 1 and [0018]).
Because UPPALA’s teaching is also directed to a device for receiving a command (UPPALA: device 104 and/or 106, fig.1; OLSON: device 50, figs.1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of receiving a command from another device of wireless communication system as taught by UPPALA with a device for receiving the command as taught by OLSON for the purpose of controlling building functions such as lighting, climate control, security, and other functions. For example, home automation systems may provide for centralized control of light switches, dimmers, thermostats, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, building sensors, and other household devices (UPPALA: [0001]).
Claim 28/23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OLSON (US-20200312318-A1) in view of WU (US-20240187315-A1).
Regarding claim 28/23, OLSON teaches wherein the device is adapted for deriving at least a part of at least one of the contextual information (OLSON: configured to control the number and the type of actions that the electronic device 50 can be invoked/triggered to perform via voice commands based on contextual information such as, but not limited to, a context of a user 30, a context of the electronic device 50 such as current state (i.e., current configuration), an environment of the user 30 and/or the electronic device 50 such as time, day, temperature, weather, ambient lighting, location, etc, [0040]), the setting and the operation (OLSON: determines contextual information relevant to the voice command, such as microwave settings necessary to perform the voice command. For example, based on the recipe and/or one or more online data sources, the voice agent 205 determines microwave settings such as temperature and amount of time necessary to defrost the frozen chicken, and triggers/invokes the smart microwave M to start in accordance with the microwave settings and display visual feedback via a control surface of the smart microwave M, wherein the visual feedback is indicative of the microwave settings. The user 30 can review the microwave settings displayed, and make adjustments, if necessary, via voice interaction (e.g., issuing a voice command) or touch interaction (e.g., interacting with the control surface), [0099-0101]).
OLSON does not appear to teach accessing a digital twin of the instructing device and/or a digital twin of the device to derive at least a part of at least one of the contextual information, the setting and the operation.
However, it is known by WU to teach of a device (WU: network device 103 being controlled by the control device 101, fig.1, and a server 102 can forward the control command and the status data between the control device 101 and the network device 103 through the IoT platform, [0041]; the network devices 103 may be network devices of different types produced by different manufacturers, for example, a camera, an intelligent refrigerator, and an air conditioner…The network device 103 can receive the control command of the control device 101 by using the server 102, perform the corresponding operation based on the control command, [0042]) including accessing a digital twin of the device to derive at least a part of at least one of the contextual information, the setting and the operation (WU: obtains a first digital twin model, and associates the first digital twin model with a corresponding standard model, where the first digital twin model describes a data format supported by the first network device [0071]; a digital twin model corresponding to the network device with the first model number, and develops the IoT application [0072]; digital twin metamodel is used to describe one feature of the first network device. The digital twin metamodel includes one or more of the following: a property metamodel, a command metamodel, an event metamodel, a data metamodel, a component metamodel, and a relationship metamodel [0073]).
Because WU’s teaching is also directed to a device for receiving a command (WU: network device 103; OLSON: device 50, figs.1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of accessing a digital twin of the device to derive at least a part of at least one of the contextual information, the setting and the operation as taught by WU with the device for receiving the command as taught by OLSON for the purpose of controlling devices of different manufactures according to commands in different data formats using different digital twin models (WU: [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
RAKSHIT (US-20210217423-A1) teaches a device receiving command, interpreting the command based on contextual information, generating settings to control another device.
SAADATPANAH (US-20220392435-A1) teaches a device receiving command, interpreting the command based on contextual information, generating settings to control another device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA D CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-0906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am - 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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/JESSICA DORA CHAU/
/J.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
1 Claims 43, 45, 58, and 59 depend on claim 23. Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See objection above for details. For claims 43, 45, 58, and 59, the cross-out limitations are based on non-elected limitations of non-elected claims of Invention I. See restriction above for details.
Prosecution Insights