DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority Acknowledgment
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP 2022-021996 filed on 02/16/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites
“An information processing apparatus comprising:
a noise detector that detects a noise level;
a command speech detector that detects whether it is a command speech period, which is a period of time between detection of a wake-up word from a user's speech sound and the detection of user's command speech; and
a volume controller including one or more processors,
wherein the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period and sets the volume of the sounds based on the noise level acquired before a point backward in predetermined time from the point of when the wake-up word has been detected, when the noise level is detected during the command speech period.” as recited in Claim 13.
The independent claims 13, 18 and 19 recite substantially the same concept but do so in the context of an apparatus, a method and a recording medium.
The limitations recited in the independent claims as drafted covers a mental process. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human controls a volume of sound output based on a noise level. For example, the human could control the volume of the sound output based on the noise level for a period between a wake-up word (e.g., OK Google, Alexa, Hey Siri...) and a voice command from the user.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional limitations of a circuit, a processor and a recording medium. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as a circuit, a processor and a recording medium in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device other than controlling the volume of the sound output based on the noise level. The mere recitation of a circuit, a processor and a recording medium and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. The paragraphs [0075] disclose “In the case of having a server execute a voice recognition processing, for example, for executing a voice assistant function in the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B, the processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B may be executed on the server. Specifically, the collected sounds by the sound collector 10 is transferred to the server connected to an internet network, and the server executes the processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B, which is to detect whether it is the command speech period and to detect the speech time of the wake-up word. The detection result detected at the server is transmitted to the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B via the internet network. The processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B recognizes the wake-up word and the command speech from the user's speech sound, and thus requires a SoC (System on Chip) capable of an extremely high-speed arithmetic processing and resources such as the memory for the arithmetic processing. In addition, the processing of the voice assistant function requires the SoC capable of the extremely high-speed arithmetic processing in order to recognize the contents of operating instructions to an apparatus or instructions for information retrieval from the user's speech sound and to execute such instructions, and the resources such as the memory for the arithmetic processing. In other words, similar resources are required to execute the processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B and the processing of the voice assistant function. In addition, the processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B and the processing of the voice assistant function are both executed based on the collected sounds in the sound collector 10. In other words, when processing the voice assistant function on the server, a circuit of the command speech detector 30 in the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B is deleted, and the collected sounds in the sound collector 10 is transmitted to the server to execute the processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B. This reduces costs of the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B because circuits of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B can be deleted. In addition, since the SoC and the memory for example, that execute high- speed arithmetic processing can be deleted, power consumption of the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B can be reduced. In addition, since the circuits of the command speech detectors30, 30A, and 30B can be deleted, weight of the information processing apparatuses 1,lA, and 1B can be reduced.”
As filed in the specification, the computer is listed as a general-purpose computer and are mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further do not remedy the issues noted above. More specifically, Claim 14 recites a mental process of controlling the volume of the sounds based on the noise level for a predetermined period. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 15 recites a mental process of controlling the volume of the sounds based on the noise level for a predetermined period. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 16 recites a definition of the sound. There are no additional limitations presented. Claims 20 and 21 recite the similar features as Claim 16. Claim 17 recites a definition of the sound. There are no additional limitations presented. Claims 22 and 23 recite the similar features as Claim 17.
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a volume controller including one or more processors, wherein the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a third step in which the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period,”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a third step in which the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period”
The claim recites the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period. When the noise level is not detected, it means there is no noise level. How does the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when there is no noise level during the command speech period? There is no way to set volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period.
Claims 14-17 and 21-24 depends directly/indirectly on claim 13, thus Claims 14-17 and 21-24 are rejected as the same ground by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Interpretations
8. 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.
9. 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.
Claims 13 recites
“a noise detector that detects a noise level;
a command speech detector that detects whether it is a command speech period, which is a period of time between detection of a wake-up word from a user's speech sound and the detection of user's command speech; and…”
Claim 13 has been 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 non-structural term “detector” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the non-structural term “detector” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For a specific function, the corresponding structure must include an algorithm that transforms the general-purpose computer to the special purpose computer programmed to perform the specific claimed function. The algorithm may be expressed in any understandable terms, including mathematical formula, prose, flow chart, or other appropriate language or drawing that discloses the structure. It is not sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software. There must be an explanation of how the computer or component performs the claimed function. Sufficiency of explanation is determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: In the specification, paragraph [0075] disclose “The processing of the command speech detectors 30, 30A, and 30B recognizes the wake-up word and the command speech from the user’s speech sound, and thus requires a SoC (System on Chip) capable of an extremely high-speech arithmetic processing and resources such as the memory for the arithmetic processing, Fig. 1, [0015] Specifically, when detecting the noise level, the noise detector 20 checks the information received from the command noise detector 30 described below, determines whether the noise level has been detected during the command speech period, and transmits the noise level and a determination result together to the volume controller 50.) In light of the specification and the figure, a detector in claim 13 and dependent claims is/are interpreted as a circuit.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173, 2181 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 13-23 are allowed in view of the prior art of record. The claims stand rejected under 101 abstract idea of mental process and 112(b) indefinite, and for the application to pass to allowance these rejections need to be overcome. Any amendments to overcome the 101 and 112(b) rejections that results in any change in scope require further search and/or consideration in order to determine it allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art(s) taken alone or in combination fail(s) to teach the following element(s) in combination with the other recited elements in the claim(s).
“a volume controller including one or more processors,
wherein the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period and sets the volume of the sounds based on the noise level acquired before a point backward in predetermined time from the point of when the wake-up word has been detected, when the noise level is detected during the command speech period.” as recited in Claim 13.
“a third step in which the volume controller sets volume of sounds output to the user based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period, and sets the volume of the sounds based on the noise level acquired before a point backward in predetermined time from the point of when the wake-up word has been detected, when the noise level is detected during the command speech period.” as recited in Claims 18 and 19.
The closest prior arts found as following.
a. Kim et al. (US 2019/0267020 A1.) In this reference, Kim et al. disclose controlling the output volume of in an adaptive manner to external noise to improve the recognition ratio of the speech guidance (Kim et al. [0049] The microphone unit 110 of the volume control device 100 measures the level of the ambient noise. Each component of the volume control apparatus 100 obtains a minimum utterance magnitude of the speech guidance and determines the output volume based on logic for measuring only background noise except for a sudden loud noise or speech guidance of the product itself, [0052] A noise sound pressure calculation unit 120 of a volume control apparatus 100 measures a SPL of ambient noise by using a signal inputted to the microphone unit 110 (S10). For example, an A-weight filter is applied to the signal inputted to the microphone, which is included in the volume control apparatus 100 to calculate the SPL in a dB unit, [0055] The volume conversion unit 140 maps the volume based on the noise SPL and the speech guidance SPL. For example, a sigmoid function can be used as shown in FIG. 4. The volume conversion unit 140 can nonlinearly change the volume of the correct speech guidance expected by the user according to the level of the ambient noise. Such a change can be expressed as the sigmoid function of FIG. 4. In this process, an optimum parameter can be applied by calibrating the position where the volume control device 100 utters and the position where the noise is generated, Fig. 4.) In this reference, Kim et al. determines the level of the ambient noise and controls the volume of the sound output based on the determined level of the ambient noise. Kim et al. does not teach and/or suggest controlling the volume of the sound output based on the noise level of the ambient noise when the noise level of the ambient noise is not detected during the command speech period. Thus, Kim et al. fail to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
b. Fu et al. (US 2017/0126192 A1.) In this reference, Fu et al. disclose adjusting the volume of the sound playing on the terminal, based on the acquired noise information (Fu et al. [0030] In an implementation, adjusting volume of the sound based on the acquired ambient noise information may include, when the sound is playing on a terminal executing the method, directly adjusting the volume of the sound playing on the terminal, based on the acquired ambient noise information. In an additional or alternative implementation, adjusting the volume of the sound based on the acquired ambient noise information may include, when the sound is playing on another different terminal, generating a control instruction configured to adjust the volume of the sound based on the acquired ambient noise information, and sending the control instruction to the other terminal to trigger the other terminal to adjust the volume of the sound playing on the other terminal, based on the acquired ambient noise information, Fig. 2 elements 201, 202 and 203.) In this reference, Fu et al. acquires the amplitude of the ambient noise and compares the acquired amplitude of the ambient noise to a first and a second predetermined threshold to adjust the volume of the sound. Fu et al. does not teach and/or suggest adjusting the volume of the sound based on the ambient sound when the ambient sound is not detected during the command speech period. Thus, Fu et al. fail to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
c. Hoang Co Thuy et al. (US 2009/0304191 A1.) In this reference, Hoang Co Thuy et al. disclose automatic gain control system applied to an audio signal as a function of ambient noise (Hoang Co Thuy [0014] Thus, an object of the invention is to propose an automatic gain control system that makes it possible in effective and simple manner to extract the speech signal associated with the voices of people present in the vehicle from the signal that is detected by the microphone, thereby improving the estimation of ambient noise that is used as a basis for automatically controlling volume, [0067] The purpose of the starting step (1a) is to trigger automatic volume control only when the detected noise level is greater than a certain threshold. One of the reasons for this option is that it is desirable to avoid changing volume, e.g. when the user is traveling in town with noise conditions that are generally low but continuously varying because of starting and slowing down as a result of traffic.) Hoang Co Thuy et al. detects a noise level, compares the detected noise level with a threshold and triggering automatic volume control only when the detected noise level is greater than the threshold. Hoang Co Thuy et al. does not teach and/or suggest triggering automatic volume control based on the noise level when the noise level is not detected during the command speech period. Thus, Hoang Co Thuy et al. fail to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Port et al. (US 2023/0010466 A1.) In this reference, Port et al. disclose adjusting the volume of the overall system based upon a noise estimate to ensure that a listener can understand the audio in the presence of the noise.
b. Bai et al. (US 2022/0391163 A1.) In this reference, Bai et al. disclose adjusting playback volume of audio or video on the terminal based on the voice energy.
c. Lee et al. (US 2022/0294405 A1.) In this reference, Lee et al. disclose adjusting the playback volume in response to the determined background noise level.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUYKHANH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-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, Andrew C. Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
/THUYKHANH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655