DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under Double Patenting
Applicant argues that claims 7-8 and 17-18 are not subject to any double
patenting rejection.
However, claims 7-8 and 17-18 have not been rejected under double patenting rejection in Office Action mailed on 03/26/2026.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Applicant asserts that claimed invention solves this technical problem by displaying the recognized character string and displaying/emphasizing applications or services and an improvement in a computer user interface control and device execution would represent a clear integration into a practical application (REMARKS, on page 8, 2nd paragraph – page 10, 2nd paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claims 1-20 are still directed to abstract idea. The patent-eligibility analysis below follows Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations, dated December 4, 2025.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware comprising the following limitations:
Analyzing speech input to obtain a word which is indicative of an action.
Presenting an application and/or a service.
These steps describe the process and presentation of data relating to voice commands based on the analyzed data. Courts have consistently held that such concepts—collecting information, analyzing or processing data, and adjusting a system based on the results—are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection, analysis, and display are abstract ideas); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content is an abstract idea).
Here, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and processing data (biased transcription and user behavior signals), analyzing that data (generating a confidence score), and using that analysis to update a model (training the speech recognizer).
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
The claim recites implementation on generic data processing hardware and routine computer components such as applications and monitoring modules executing on the user device. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or any particular hardware configuration that improves the performance of the device or the speech recognition system.
Each limitation can be viewed as conventional computer functions or generic data processing:
Receiving biased transcription data (generic data input).
Instructing an application to perform an action (routine control operation).
Displaying the result (generic data output- post activity)
The claim does not recite any technical details about how the confidence model operates differently from conventional models, nor does it describe any novel hardware or software architecture that improves computer functionality. The steps are performed on generic hardware without any specific enhancement to the technology.
The claim thus fails to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (holding that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient).
Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 12, claims 2 and 12 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, claims 3 and 13 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 14, claims 4 and 14 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 15, claims 5 and 15 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, claims 6 and 16 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, claims 7 and 17 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 18, claims 8 and 18 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 19, claims 9 and 19 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, claims 10 and 20 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer.
Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality. As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is improper because:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that:
1) Gruber does not analyze the character string to obtain an action word, and then display the application and/or service itself (such as a TV viewing application, recording application, or music service) on the display screen based on the character string including that action word, where the displayed application/service is associated with the action. In the claimed invention, if a user utters "I want to watch tomorrow's XXX" (action word: "watch"), the display control circuitry displays/emphasizes applications/services related to viewing; and
2) Gruber has no teaching or suggestion of displaying selectable applications and/or services associated with an analyzed action word in this manner. Gruber appears to immediately execute a search and display the retrieved data points (e.g., restaurant details) rather than presenting the user with control options for applications/services associated with a detected action.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Applicant’s argument improperly reads an additional limitation into the claim. The claim does not require displaying the application/service itself. Rather, the claim merely recites the limitation, “display an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance…is associated with the action” in claim 1. In addition, Applicant asserts that “watch” is an action word, however the claim recites the limitation a(the) “word is indicative of an action” in claim 1.
Moreover, Gruber teaches that the system may analyze a user input (e.g., ‘Asian restaurant’), determine an intent (e.g., ‘a user wants to see a list of one or more Asian Restaurant’), obtain a word (e.g., ‘Restaurant’) which is indicative of an action (e.g., ‘execute a search to show a list of one or more Asian Restaurant’). Moreover, Gruber presents
Gruber appears to immediately execute a search and display the retrieved data points rather than presenting the user with control options for applications/services associated with a detected action, however the feature of the underlined is not recited in the claim.
Moreover, ‘Restaurant’ is a word which is indicative of an action—i.e., the user’s intent to view a list of on ore more restaurants. Grover analyzes the user input, including the word ‘restaurant’, to determine this intent, and then executes a search and displays the list.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that: Gruber does not disclose the features of Claim 1 and therefore cannot disclose "execute a process related to the application or the service corresponding to the action" in the claimed manner.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to the above and the rejection below.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that: Gruber does not disclose displaying the application and/or service in a manner that they are emphasized on the display screen based on the action word.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruber teaches that in Fig. 35, screen 3502 provides a list with emphasizing different fonts and table format.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that: Gruber does not disclose receiving user input identifying a selected application or service from a displayed list of applications or services associated with the action and executing it.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruber teaches that in Figs. 35 and 36, a user may select one of the options and cause execution of processing a service ([0469]-[0488]).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that the emphasized word is not merely an arbitrary highlighted keyword.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruger teaches that the system may analyze a user input to determine an intent and highlight keywords to search (Fig. 35, [0469]-[0488]).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Gruber does not disclose the combination of dividing the character string into words and controlling the display including indicating the words in the specific structural configuration of Claim 1.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruber teaches that utterance from a user is divided word by word and the display shows the result indicating the words to control (Fig. 35, [0469]-[0488]).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that Gruber merely shows features of the intelligent automated assistance interface device and not how the device displays applications and/or service responsive to the performance capabilities of the device.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruber’s searching and showing the list as a result is indicative of “performance of …device”, as recited in claim 9 (Fig. 35, [0469]-[0488]).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Gruber does not disclose that the displayed character string indicating the contents of the utterance is editable by an input operation.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gruber discloses that after presenting the result, a user may add more input to refine the contents of utterance (e.g., by saying ‘near my office’) (Gruber, [0482]-[0484]).
Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection. Please see the rejection below.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 2, of U.S. Patent No. 10,424,291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because adding inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the insertion of an element, e.g., “specify, after identifying the external device, applications or services suitable to be executed by the external device based on performance information of the external device, the performance information indicating at least a function supported by the external device”, “obtain a search word by determining respective scores of parts of the character string on a basis of a semantic analysis or a syntactic analysis of the character string“ and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Insertion of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application No. 18/830,154
U.S. Patent No. 10,424,291
1. An information processing device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to analyze a character string indicating contents of an utterance to obtain a word included in the character string, wherein the character string is obtained as a result of speech recognition performed on the utterance and the word is indicative of an action; and display control circuitry configured to display the character string indicating the contents of the utterance, and display an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen based on the character string including the word, wherein the displayed application and/or the service is associated with the action.
2. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute a process related to the application or the service corresponding to the action.
3. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the display control circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen in a manner that the application and/or the service are/is emphasized on the display screen.
4. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive a user input identifying a selected application or service from a list of applications or services; and cause execution of the selected application or service in response to the user input.
5. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the character string includes a search word, and a portion of the character string that corresponds to the search word is emphasized by visually changing characters of the search word.
10. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the displayed character string indicating the contents of utterance is editable by an input operation.
1. An information processing device comprising:
a Micro Processing Unit (MPU) configured to execute instructions, wherein the MPU is configured to:
identify an external device in response to a user selection;
specify, after identifying the external device, applications or services suitable to be executed by the external device based on performance information of the external device, the performance information indicating at least a function supported by the external device;
detect an utterance of a voice;
identify a character string indicating contents of the utterance by performing speech recognition on the detected utterance;
analyze the character string to obtain a search word by
determining respective scores of parts of the character string on a basis of a semantic analysis or a syntactic analysis of the character string,
using one of the parts of the character string as the search word in a case that the score of the one of the parts of the character string is within a reference range, and
using the entire character string as the search word in a case that the scores of the parts of the character string are not within the reference range;
determine a list of applications or services from the specified applications or services based on the search word;
display the character string, an indicator emphasizing the search word in the character string, and the list of applications or services;
receive a user input identifying a selected application or service from the list of applications or services; and
cause execution of the selected application or service in response to the user input.
2. The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the MPU is configured to display the character string indicating the contents of the utterance in a state in which the character string is editable.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 2 and 4, of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because adding inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the insertion of an element, e.g., “set a score with respect to the character string indicating the contents of the utterance on the basis of a result of syntactic analysis performed on the character string indicating the contents of the utterance or on the basis of a result of semantic analysis performed on the result of the syntactic analysis and the character string indicating the contents of the utterance”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Insertion of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application No. 18/830,154
U.S. Patent No. 11,676,578
1. An information processing device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to analyze a character string indicating contents of an utterance to obtain a word included in the character string, wherein the character string is obtained as a result of speech recognition performed on the utterance and the word is indicative of an action; and display control circuitry configured to display the character string indicating the contents of the utterance, and display an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen based on the character string including the word, wherein the displayed application and/or the service is associated with the action.
2. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute a process related to the application or the service corresponding to the action.
3. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the display control circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen in a manner that the application and/or the service are/is emphasized on the display screen.
4. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive a user input identifying a selected application or service from a list of applications or services; and cause execution of the selected application or service in response to the user input.
5. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the character string includes a search word, and a portion of the character string that corresponds to the search word is emphasized by visually changing characters of the search word.
6. The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the application corresponding to the search word comprises one or more of an application for displaying at least one of a program table of television broadcasting, an application related to viewing of television broadcasting, an application for displaying a list of recorded content, an application related to playback of content recorded on a recording medium, and an application for establishing connection to a network.
9. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen based on performance of the information processing device.
1. An information processing device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to analyze a character string indicating contents of utterance to obtain a word included in the character string indicating an action, the character string being obtained as a result of speech recognition performed on the utterance; and display control circuitry configured to display the character string indicating the contents of the utterance and to display an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen,
wherein the application and/or the service corresponds to the action of the analysis result, and the display control circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen in a manner such that the application and/or the service are/is emphasized on the display screen.
2. The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the display control circuitry is configured to identify the application or the service with reference to a table associating the action of the analysis result with the application or the service.
3. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the display control circuitry is configured to determine a candidate of the application to be displayed on the display screen and/or a candidate of the service to be displayed on the display screen on the basis of performance information indicating performance of the device.
4. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute a process related to an application or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance from among the application and/or the service corresponding to the contents of the utterance displayed on the display screen.
5. The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set a score with respect to the character string indicating the contents of the utterance on the basis of a result of syntactic analysis performed on the character string indicating the contents of the utterance or on the basis of a result of semantic analysis performed on the result of the syntactic analysis and the character string indicating the contents of the utterance.
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.
Claims 1-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 11 recites “analyzing a character string indicating contents of an utterance to obtain a word included in the character string, wherein the character string is obtained as result of speech recognition performed on the utterance and the word is indicative of an action; and displaying the character string indicating the contents of the utterance, and displaying an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen based on the character string including the word, wherein the application and/or the service associated with the action, and the action is associated with the word”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite obtaining audio, obtaining and comparing multiple versions of transcription and determining the final version.
[Abstract idea indicators]
Transcribing speech into text is the conversion of verbal content to written form—a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Analyzing request to infer a purpose and actions is an activity of comprehension and extraction of meaning, i.e., a cognitive process.
Displaying a service based on the action are decision-making and planning steps that are mental processes with conventional tools.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there 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.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory and processor) and broadly recite use of “speech recognition” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “receiving,” “decomposing,” “selecting”, “providing”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, the claim is similar to claim 11 and claim 1 recite additional element of “processing circuitry” and “display control circuitry which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruber et al., (US Pub. 2012/0245944).
Regarding claim 1, Gruber discloses an information processing device, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to analyze a character string indicating contents of an utterance to obtain a word included in the character string, wherein the character string is obtained as a result of speech recognition performed on the utterance and the word is indicative of an action (Figs. 2, 35 and 40, [0127][0161][0172][0593] Conversation screen features a conversational user interface showing a result of speech recognition obtained from user input; analyzing and obtaining keywords which are indicative of actions or commands); and
display control circuitry configured to display the character string indicating the contents of the utterance, and display an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen based on the character string including the word, wherein the displayed application and/or the service is associated with the action (Figs. 2 and 35, displaying search result performed by external services. [0161][0162] conversational user interface showing what the user said 101B, ‘I'd like a romantic place for Italian food near my office’, and assistant's 1002 response based on analyzing user’s input, information screen 101E shows information gathered and combined from a variety of services).
Regarding claim 2, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute a process related to the application or the service corresponding to the action (Fig. 2, [0161][0162] “the user clicks on the first result in the list, and the result automatically opens up to reveal more information about the restaurant, shown in information screen 101E”).
Regarding claim 3, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the display control circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen in a manner that the application and/or the service are/is emphasized on the display screen (Fig. 40 and [0593] displaying the obtained keywords such as ‘events’, ‘next Wednesday’, ‘San Francisco’ by using special formatting/highlighting to emphasize).
Regarding claim 4, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive a user input identifying a selected application or service from a list of applications or services; and cause execution of the selected application or service in response to the user input (Fig. 2, [0161][0162] “the user clicks on the first result in the list, and the result automatically opens up to reveal more information about the restaurant, shown in information screen 101E”).
Regarding claim 5, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the character string includes a search word, and a portion of the character string that corresponds to the search word is emphasized by visually changing characters of the search word (Fig. 40 and [0593] paraphrasing and displaying the obtained keywords such as ‘events’, ‘next Wednesday’, ‘San Francisco’ by using special formatting/highlighting to emphasize).
Regarding claim 8, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: divide the character string indicating the contents of the utterance into words; and control the display including indicating the words (Gruber, [0824]-[0836] parsing a user input using a tree of ontology nodes bound to their matching input tokens, with annotations and exceptions. For each node in the parse, this may include the node's metadata and/or any tokens in the input that provide evidence for the node's value).
Regarding claim 9, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display the application and/or the service on the display screen based on performance of the information processing device (Gruber, Figs. 2 and 35, [0161][0162][0487] “In the example of FIG. 35, the user can select an item within list 3502 to see more details and to perform additional actions” on a basis of performance of the system).
Regarding claim 10, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, and Gruber further discloses:
wherein the displayed character string indicating the contents of utterance is editable by an input operation (Gruber, Figs. 43A and 43B, the contents of user utterance are editable by additional input).
Regarding claim 11, Gruber discloses an information processing method, comprising:
analyzing a character string indicating contents of an utterance to obtain a word included in the character string, wherein the character string is obtained as result of speech recognition performed on the utterance and the word is indicative of an action
(Figs. 2, 35 and 40, [0127][0161][0172][0593] Conversation screen features a conversational user interface showing a result of speech recognition obtained from user input; analyzing and obtaining keywords which are indicative of actions or commands); and
displaying the character string indicating the contents of the utterance, and displaying an application and/or a service corresponding to the contents of the utterance on a display screen based on the character string including the word, wherein the application and/or the service associated with the action, and the action is associated with the word (Figs. 2 and 35, displaying search result performed by external services; [0161][0162] conversational user interface showing what the user said 101B, ‘I'd like a romantic place for Italian food near my office’, and assistant's 1002 response based on analyzing user’s input, information screen 101E shows information gathered and combined from a variety of services associated with the input words).
Regarding claim 12, Gruber discloses the information processing method according to claim 11, and Gruber further discloses:
executing a process related to the application or the service corresponding to the contents of the utterance (Figs. 2 and 35, displaying search result performed by external services; [0161][0162] showing information gathered and combined from a variety of services associated with the input utterances).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 18-20, Claims 13-15 and 18-20 are the corresponding method claims to system claims 3-5 and 8-10. Therefore, claims 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 3-5 and 8-10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gruber et al., (US Pub. 2012/0245944) in view of Kim et al., (US Pub. 2013/0035941, priority date: 2011-11-03).
Regarding claim 6, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 5.
Gruber does not explicitly teach however Kim does explicitly teach:
wherein the application corresponding to the search word comprises one or more of an application for displaying at least one of a program table of television broadcasting, an application related to viewing of television broadcasting, an application for displaying a list of recorded content, an application related to playback of content recorded on a recording medium, and an application for establishing connection to a network (Kim, Fig. 27, [0364] if a user command to display a content list to perform smart functions e.g., functions of accessing the Internet, executing an application, reproducing a moving image, listening to music and etc., is input, a smart hub 2700 is displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the method of processing a device using speech input as taught by Gruber with method for controlling electronic apparatus based on voice recognition as taught by Kim to provide a user to control an electronic apparatus more conveniently and effectively (Kim, [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Gruber discloses the information processing device according to claim 5.
Gruber does not explicitly teach however Kim does explicitly teach:
wherein the service corresponding to the search word comprises one or more of a service for displaying at least one of a video service, a music service, a service provided by an image posting website, and a search service provided by a search site (Kim, Fig. 27, [0337][0338][0364] providing music content or video content service).
The previous motivation statement as in claim 6 is still applied.
Regarding claims 16-17, Claims 16-17 are the corresponding method claims to system claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 6-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights