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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11, 17-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (US 20240221739, hereinafter Prasad) in view of Ankur (US 20200403995.)
Regarding claim 1, “A method of controlling a system including a TV and a remote control, the method comprising” Prasad teaches (¶0012) a content streaming device with voice-based functions; (¶0014) a remote control or other devices (e.g., smartphone, etc.) coupled to the content streaming device. The remote control may generate digital voice data representative of the analog sound input and send the voice data to the content streaming device over a wired or wireless communication protocol; (¶0013) a content streaming device may be configured to communicate with a display device, such as a television.
As to “outputting a video signal of content received from an STB through a screen of the TV” Prasad teaches (¶0070) the content streaming device 500 may include a set-top box; (¶0013) a content streaming device may be configured to communicate with a display device, such as a television. Content streaming devices may be media streaming or media output devices configured to facilitate streaming of remotely stored content and/or presentation of locally stored content.
As to “outputting an audio signal of the content received from the STB through a speaker of the TV” Prasad teaches (¶0048-¶0049 and Fig. 7) content streaming device 204 may further initiate a first audio response 340 at, for example, a speaker of the display device 300 in addition to the first conversation card 330;
As to “receiving a first wake-up word corresponding to an Al speaker of the STB through a microphone of the remote control; transmitting the first wake-up word to a transceiver of the TV through a wireless communication transceiver of the remote control” Prasad teaches (¶0014) a user may interact with a content streaming device by providing analog sound input (e.g., voice) to a remote control or other devices (e.g., smartphone, etc.) coupled to the content streaming device. The remote control may generate digital voice data representative of the analog sound input and send the voice data to the content streaming device over a wired or wireless communication protocol; (¶0015 and ¶0030) content streaming device may determine whether the voice data includes a trigger word, a trigger word may be “Alexa” and may indicate that the voice data includes a verbal query. The content streaming device may have an expression detector that analyzes an audio signal produced by a microphone of the remote control to detect the wakeword.
Prasad does not teach “and outputting a second wake-up word through the speaker of the TV.” However, Ankur teaches (¶0059) acoustic signal generating section 15 desirably outputs an acoustic signal related to a predetermined wake word for starting a predetermined function in second device 2 before speaker 106 outputs the acoustic signal related to the authentication code; (¶0056) Acoustic signal generating section 15 then converts the acoustic signal from a digital signal into an analog signal and outputs it as a sound wave from speaker 106 of first device 1; (¶0045) device is television. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad with the outputting a wake word from a speaker of device/television as taught by Ankur for the benefit of pairing/establishing communication between two devices (¶0039.)
Regarding claim 7, Prasad alone does not teach “The method of claim 1, wherein the first wake-up word and the second wake-up word are the same or different.” Ankur teaches (¶0059) acoustic signal generating section 15 desirably outputs an acoustic signal related to a predetermined wake word for starting a predetermined function in second device 2 before speaker 106 outputs the acoustic signal related to the authentication code; (¶0056) Acoustic signal generating section 15 then converts the acoustic signal from a digital signal into an analog signal and outputs it as a sound wave from speaker 106 of first device 1; (¶0045) device is television. Accordingly, when Prasad is modified with the teachings of Ankur the first wakeup word (as taught by Prasad, spoken by user) would be different from the second wakeup word (as taught by Ankur, generated by speaker.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad with the outputting a wake word from a speaker of device/television as taught by Ankur for the benefit of pairing/establishing communication between two devices (¶0039.)
Regarding claim 8, “The method of claim 1, wherein the Al speaker is implemented separately from the STB or integrally with the STB.” Prasad teaches (¶0015) Alexa; (¶0027-¶0028) the content streaming device 104 may send the voice data to one or more remote servers for voice processing, while in other embodiments, the content streaming device 104 may locally process the voice data 116 to determine whether the voice data includes a trigger word; Upon declaring that the audio signal represents an utterance of the trigger expression, the content streaming device begins transmitting the audio signal to the remote, network-based speech recognition system for detecting and responding to subsequent user utterances; (¶0029) providing audio response to user query.
Regarding claim 11, its rejection is similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, its rejection is similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, its rejection is similar to claim 8.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad and Ankur in view of Hatambeiki et al. (US 20200219505, hereinafter Hatambeiki.)
Regarding claim 2, Prasad and Ankur do not teach “The method of claim 1, further comprising, when the second wake-up word is output, stopping the output of the audio signal of the content or reducing a volume of the audio signal of the content, according to a volume level of the TV.” However, Hatambeiki teaches (¶0129 and ¶0128) the system may provide Audio ducking, i.e., an application of the sound metering feature that allows sound meter to mute, pause, or lower the volume of AV devices that it controls when a wake-up word is detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad and Ankur with the outputting a wake word from a speaker of device/television as taught by Hatambeiki for the benefit of pairing/establishing communication between two devices (¶0039.)
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 2, wherein when the volume level of the TV is set to 75% or more of a maximum value, the output of the audio signal of the content is stopped.” Hatambeiki continues teaching (¶0129 and ¶0128) the system may provide Audio ducking, i.e., an application of the sound metering feature that allows sound meter to mute, pause, or lower the volume of AV devices that it controls when a wake-up word is detected; (¶0107-¶0108) television has a minimum level/value to a maximum level/value.
Regarding claim 12, its rejection is similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, its rejection is similar to claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad and Ankur in view of Shin et al. (US 20150019215, hereinafter Shin.)
Regarding claim 4, Prasad and Ankur do not teach “The method of claim 1, further comprising, when the second wake-up word is output, stopping the output of the audio signal of the content or reducing a volume of the audio signal of the content, according to ambient noise of the TV.” However, Shin teaches (¶0077, ¶0192 and Fig. 5) Upon recognizing a magic word indicating start of voice recognition, a first group electric equipment transmits an operation change signal to another first group electric equipment and a second group electric equipment in order to change operations of the another first group electric equipment and the second group electric equipment; (¶0079-¶0080, ¶0193, ¶0190) changing operational load by reducing an operation rate of the speaker, which is the load generating noise, in the television by a first reduction rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad and Ankur with the noise reduction as taught by Shin for the benefit of improving performance of the voice recognition and thus improving operational accuracy of an electric equipment (abstract.)
Regarding claim 14, its rejection is similar to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad, Ankur, and Shin in view of Geist (US 20200366998.)
Regarding claim 5, “The method of claim 4, wherein when the ambient noise of the TV is equal to or greater than…, the output of the audio signal of the content is stopped.” Shin teaches (¶0045 and ¶0177) The transmitting the noise reduction control signal to the at least one electric equipment may include checking a level of sound around the sound collection unit and transmitting the noise reduction control signal when the checked sound level is equal to or greater than a reference sound level; (¶0200 and Fig. 7) reducing operational rates until stopping; (¶0080 and ¶0190) changing operational load by reducing volume of a speaker; (¶0027) controller may control an operation rate of 100% through 0% of the at least one electric equipment; (¶0028) The controller may reduce an operation rate of the at least one electric equipment by a predetermined reduction rate; (¶0029) The controller may reduce the operation rate of the at least one electric equipment step by step until a level of sound around the sound collection unit is less than a reference sound level.
Prasad, Ankur, and Shin do not teach “85dB.” However, Geist teaches (¶0034) a harmful sound has a decibel level over 85 decibels. When the signal processing and transmitting unit 311 determines that a digital signal is of a harmful decibel level, the processor 312 and amplifier 314 will not allow the digital signal to pass through to the transducer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad, Ankur, and Shin with the general concept of not allowing a signal of 85db to pass as taught by Geist for the benefit of not exposing users to harmful/damaging noises.
Regarding claim 6, “The method of claim 5, wherein the ambient noise of the TV is acquired through a microphone of the TV.” Shin further teaches (Fig. 3 and ¶0085, ¶0088) electric equipment 100a includes a microphone; (¶0081) electric equipment is a television.
Regarding claim 15, its rejection is similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, its rejection is similar to claim 6.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad and Ankur in view of Wood et al. (US 20200112700, hereinafter Wood) and Lemus et al. (US 20120154689, hereinafter Lemus.)
Regarding claim 9, Prasad and Ankur do not teach “The method of claim 1, further comprising storing the first wake-up word by mapping the first wake-up word …the remote control in a memory of the TV.” However, Wood teaches (¶0006) audio commands may include wake words, as well as commands that follow the wake words. In other embodiments, the pressing of the talk button 124 itself represents the wake word, in which case audio commands refer to the commands that follow the wake word. In other words, the remote control 107 may consider detection of the talk button 124 being pressed as receipt of the wake word. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad and Ankur with wake/talk button as taught by Wood for the benefit of user convenience.
Prasad, Ankur, and Wood do not teach mapping “to a specific number on” the remote control. However, Lemus teaches (¶0029) associate the button with a new or different function in any suitable manner as may serve a particular implementation. For example, number pad management facility 104 may reassign or remap the button to a new type of input command that is transmitted to the presentation device in response to user selection of the button. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad, Ankur, and Wood with the remapping as taught by Lemus for the benefit of allowing the user to customize their preferred button placement to their liking.
Regarding claim 10, “The method of claim 9, further comprising outputting the second wake-up word through the speaker of the TV in response to selection of the specific number on the remote control.” Ankur teaches (¶0059) acoustic signal generating section 15 desirably outputs an acoustic signal related to a predetermined wake word for starting a predetermined function in second device 2 before speaker 106 outputs the acoustic signal related to the authentication code; (¶0056) Acoustic signal generating section 15 then converts the acoustic signal from a digital signal into an analog signal and outputs it as a sound wave from speaker 106 of first device 1; (¶0045) device is television. Accordingly when Prasad and Ankur are modified with the teachings of Wood and Lemus a user would be able to press the wake/talk dedicated button and request pairing to additional devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the content streaming device with voice-based functions as taught by Prasad with the outputting a wake word from a speaker of device/television as taught by Ankur for the benefit of pairing/establishing communication between two devices (¶0039.)
Regarding claim 19, its rejection is similar to claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, its rejection is similar to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Truong et al. (US 20190042187) – (¶0027 and Figs. 1-2) The second device 106 receives the data corresponding to the wake up phrase 166′″, and the second mixer module 144 outputs an audio signal corresponding to the wake up phrase 166.sup.(IV) to the second speaker 114. In response to the audio signal corresponding to the wake up phrase 166.sup.(IV), the second speaker 114 outputs acoustic waves corresponding to the wake up phrase 166.sup.(V) at the second location 105. Further, the second microphone 112 detects the acoustic waves corresponding to the wake up phrase 166.sup.(V) and transmits an audio signal indicating the wake up phrase 166.sup.(VI) to the second device 106.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9629. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Brian T. Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
/Frank Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425