Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The filed information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION UNDER 35 USC § 112(f)
3. 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 limitation(s) is/are: a a first recording module, a second recording module, a first awakening module, a speech detection module, a first control module (claims 8 and 18-20).
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.
Claims Objection
The following claims are objected for the following reasons:
Independent claim 9 depends on independent claim 1.
Independent claim 14 depends on independent claim 1
An independent claim is a standalone claim that contains all the limitations necessary to define an invention. It should not refer to another claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 14 recite “recording, when the speech recognition device is in a dormant state, current time as first time in response to detecting that a target object stares at the speech recognition device; recording the current time as second time in response to detecting that the target object makes a speech; and awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that an interval between the first time and the second time satisfies a preset condition, such that the speech recognition device enters a speech control mode”.
The examiner is not clear on how a current time be a first time and also a second, especially, when it’s claimed that there is an interval between the first time and the second time.
The limitation is interpreted as: “recording, when the speech recognition device is in a dormant state, the second time satisfies a preset condition, such that the speech recognition device enters a speech control mode”.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected for being dependent in claims 1, 8, 9, and 14.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzelmann (US 20200349966).
As per claim 1, Konzelmann teaches recording, when the speech recognition device is in a dormant state, current time as first time in response to detecting that a target object stares at the speech recognition device ([0037], [0058], detecting, by a visual capture module, a user looking at a client device. See [0059] for a dormant speech processing device);
recording the current time as second time in response to detecting that the target object makes a speech ([0037], [0058], detecting, by a speech capture module, a user speaking a command to the client device); and
awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that an interval between the first time and the second time satisfies a preset condition, such that the speech recognition device enters a speech control mode ([0038], [0058]- [0059], in response to determining that the speech command is during or temporally near (e.g., within a threshold of time before and/or after) looking at the client device, awakening a dormant speech recognition device to process the speech command and generate a response).
Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose recording the claimed first time and second time. However, these features are necessarily performed by the system of Konzelmann, in order to calculate the interval of time between the time of detecting the user looking at the client device and the time of the user issuing the speech command, as evidenced by paragraph [0058] and [0136]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed for the system of Konzelmann to record the first time and second time as claimed. This would prevent misunderstandings and provide smooth conversations.
As per claim 3, Konzelmann teaches wherein the awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that an interval between the first time and the second time satisfies a preset condition comprises: determining, in response to determining that the interval is shorter than or equal to a first predetermined value, that the target object has an intention to control the speech recognition device, and awakening the speech recognition device ([0038], [0058]- [0059], in response to determining that the speech command is during or temporally near (e.g., within a threshold of time before and/or after) looking at the client device, awakening a dormant speech recognition device to process the speech command and generate a response).
As per claim 4, Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that an interval between the first time and the second time satisfies the preset condition comprises: determining, in response to detecting that speech duration corresponding to the speech is shorter than or equal to a third predetermined value, that the target object has an intention to control the speech recognition device in response to determining that the interval is shorter than or equal to a second predetermined value, and awakening the speech recognition device. However, in the conventional wake-up word wake-up, when a "wake-up word + speech instruction" is used, as evidenced by Konzelmann’s paragraphs [0003], [0008]- [0009], especially paragraph [0058]), wherein the example of “OK Assistant, what's today's forecast” versus the example of “what's today's forecast”. It’s obvious for the duration of the speech command “OK Assistant, what's today's forecast” to be shorter than or equal to a third predetermined value higher than the one corresponding to the speech command “what's today's forecast”. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the application was filed for the system of Konzelmann to determine, in response to detecting that speech duration corresponding to the speech is shorter than or equal to a third predetermined value, that the target object has an intention to control the speech recognition device in response to determining that the interval is shorter than or equal to a second predetermined value, and awakening the speech recognition device.
As per claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, system claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 and method claims 1, 3, 4 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 1, 3, 4. Furthermore, Konzelmann teaches one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions, as claimed (Fig. 7). See also, [0058]- [065] for natural language processing, speech recognition, and speech-to-text sub-modules
As per claims 14 and 16, Konzelmann teaches a computer readable medium ([0025]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claims 1 and 3.
Claims 2, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzelmann (US 20200349966) in view of Yue (CN 111007943, published 04/14/2020).
As per claim 2, Konzelmann teaches detecting whether a preset target keyword exists in the speech and controlling the speech recognition device to execute an operation corresponding to the preset target keyword in response to detecting that the preset target keyword exists in the speech ([0008]- [0009], monitoring for occurrence of voice activity and/or for occurrence of an explicit invocation phrase). Furthermore, this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Konzelmann’s paragraph [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed for the system of Konzelmann to additionally be invoked in response to one or more particular spoken invocation phrases, which are also known as "hot words/phrases" or "trigger words/phrases". This would save in term of power usage. Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose controlling the speech recognition device to be switched to the dormant state in response to detecting that the preset target keyword does not exist in the speech. Yue in the same field of endeavor teaches after being woken up, if an electronic loudspeaker does not receive a user sound instruction within a preset time range, a processor enters a dormant state (page 4, line 10-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Yue with the system of Konzelmann, in order to control the speech recognition device to be switched to the dormant state in response to detecting that the preset target keyword does not exist in the speech. This would save in term of power usage.
As per claims 10 and 18, system claims 10 and 18 and method claim 2 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 10 and 18 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2. Furthermore, Konzelmann teaches one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions, as claimed (Fig. 7).
As per claim 15, Konzelmann teaches a computer readable medium ([0025]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claim 2.
Claims 5, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzelmann (US 20200349966) in view of Kim (US 20210256965), and further in view of Yue (CN 111007943, published 04/14/2020).
As per claims 5 and 13, Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose enabling a monitoring function of the speech recognition device in response to detecting that the target object does not stare at the speech recognition device; detecting whether a preset wakeup word exists in the speech in response to monitoring that the target object makes the speech; awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that the preset wakeup word exists in the speech; using an audio clip in the speech except an audio clip corresponding to the preset wakeup word as a target speech, conducting semantic analysis on the target speech, and determining whether a preset target keyword exists in the target speech; and controlling the speech recognition device to operate according to a control instruction corresponding to the target keyword in response to determining that the preset target keyword exists in the target speech, and controlling the speech recognition device to be switched to the dormant state in response to determining that the preset target keyword does not exist in the target speech. Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches detecting whether a preset wakeup word exists in the speech in response to monitoring that the target object makes the speech; awakening the speech recognition device in response to determining that the preset wakeup word exists in the speech; using an audio clip in the speech except an audio clip corresponding to the preset wakeup word as a target speech, conducting semantic analysis on the target speech, and determining whether a preset target keyword exists in the target speech; and controlling the speech recognition device to operate according to a control instruction corresponding to the target keyword in response to determining that the preset target keyword exists in the target speech, (Figs. 4A to 4C and [0118]- [0126], wherein a wakeup words is detected in speech utterance (Bixby, which restaurant do you recommend?), upon determining the preset wakeup word, processing the rest of the speech utterance without the wakeup word, analyzing the speech section without the wakeup words, and performing speech recognition on the speech to generate a response to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Kim with the system of Konzelmann, in order to improve speech recognition services. Konzelmann in view of Kim may not explicitly disclose controlling the speech recognition device to be switched to the dormant state in response to determining that the preset target keyword does not exist in the target speech. Yue in the same field of endeavor teaches after being woken up, if an electronic loudspeaker does not receive a user sound instruction within a preset time range, a processor enters a dormant state (page 4, line 10-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Yue with the system of Konzelmann in view of Kim, in order to control the speech recognition device to be switched to the dormant state in response to detecting that the preset target keyword does not exist in the speech. This would save in term of power usage.
As per claim 6, Konzelmann teaches natural language processing and speech recognition processing ([0058]- [0065]). Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the conducting semantic analysis on the target speech, and determining whether the preset target keyword exists in the target speech comprise: decoding the target speech through a speech recognition model, and obtaining a candidate word sequence, wherein the speech recognition model is configured to convert the target speech into text data; generating a word grid according to the candidate word sequence, a backtracking path corresponding to the candidate word sequence, and a matched score corresponding to the candidate word sequence; retrieving a word spelling in the word grid according to a spelling of the preset target keyword, and obtaining a retrieval result; and determining that the preset target keyword exists in the target speech in response to determining that the word spelling of the preset target keyword exists in the retrieval result. Kim in the same field of endeavor, in addition to Figs. 4A to 4C and [0118]- [0126], teaches at [0049], the server 200 may perform speech recognition regarding a user's voice to convert the user's voice into a text, and grasp intent and entity of the user's voice based on a speech recognition result. At [0075], when a word obtained as a result of analysis of the user's voice included in the voice section in a phonemic unit matches with the wake-up word or at least one of a plurality of words obtained as a result of analysis matches with the wake-up word, the processor 120 may determine that the wake-up word exists in the user's voice. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Kim with the system of Konzelmann, in order to improve speech recognition services.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzelmann (US 20200349966) in view of Lu (US 20200349750).
As per claim 7 and 17, Konzelmann teaches detection and classification module that can classify region(s) (if any) of each vision frame that corresponds to eye region(s) of a human and provide such eye region(s) or an indication of such region(s), for each vision frame, to one or more of modules. Further, detection and classification model 1157 can optionally provide such region(s) for only human(s) detected to be providing a directed gaze (as determined by gaze module 1151) ([0084]- [0085]). More, Konzelmann teaches recording current time as the first time in response to detecting that the target object stares at the speech recognition device ([0037]- [0038], [0058]- [0059]). Konzelmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the speech recognition device is provided with an eyeball tracking device, and obtaining a fall point of light reflected by an eyeball of the target object on the eyeball tracking device in response to determining that the eyeball tracking device emits light; determining a line-of-sight center of the target object according to the fall point, eyeball shape information of the target object and a distance from the target object to the eyeball tracking device; and determining, in response to determining that the line-of-sight center of the target object is located in a spatial zone where the speech recognition device is located, that the target object stares at the speech recognition device, and recording the current time as the first time. Lu in the same field of endeavor teaches a recognition device provided with an eyeball tracking device, wherein eye movement data and speech data is obtained in a natural setting, where the eye movement data and the speech data are associated in time series. The eye movement feature data comprises a pupil diameter, a point of gaze, a gaze duration, a line of sight direction, an eyeball rolling speed, an eyeball rolling track, an eyeball rolling pattern ([0021], [0041]- [0043], [0074], [0076], and [0096]- [0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Lu with the system of Konzelmann in order to determine that the target object stares at the speech recognition device, as claimed. This would prevent unintended activations, improve command accuracy, and provide more intuitive hands-free user interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights