DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to amendments and arguments filed on August 4th, 2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15-16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined; hence, this action is made FINAL.
Any previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Accordingly, the pending claims have been afforded the benefit of the earlier filing date of April 18th, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on October 24th, 2024, and July 6th, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that "independent claims 1 and 6 do not merely describe asking a user to repeat or clarify a request. Rather, the claims define a particular recognition process that controls operation of an electronic device by determining whether the received audio signal should be relied upon as an instruction to wake up an electronic device. Human-computer interaction is not itself the invention. Instead, human-computer interaction is invoked only after the claimed recognition process determines the received audio signal cannot be determined by the electronic device to satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for determining whether the wakeup word is a command to wake up."
The operative step of "determining whether the received audio signal should be relied upon as an instruction to wake up an electronic device" is described as broadly as can be embodied by a human actor, or relying on the normal operation of a computer to automate the determination.
Applicant further argues that the claims "describe an improvement in the operation of a voice-activated electronic device by improving the manner in which the electronic device determines whether a received wakeup word in a received audio signal should be properly interpreted as an instruction to wake the device. The claimed invention reduces false wakeups, reduces failures to wake, improves user identification through machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition, and invokes user interaction only when the claimed recognition process determines that additional information is required."
While an improvement in the operation of a voice-activated electronic device may be the desired outcome, the claims do not lay out the particular technical improvement or method thereof beyond an abstract idea ("improving the manner in which […] a received wakeup word […] should be properly interpreted") or otherwise well-known in the art (voice recognition and confidence thresholds). Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues, "Pi does not teach or suggest the two stage determination process described in Applicant's specification and claimed in amended claim 1. Instead, Pi performs speech recognition to obtain a recognition result and associated confidence information. Pi then evaluates whether a confidence value determined from the confidence information satisfies a predetermined confidence threshold. If the confidence value reaches the threshold, Pi wakes the device. If the confidence values is close, but does not satisfy, the threshold, Pi treats the recognition result as doubtful and requests user confirmation."
These teachings of Pi map directly to the method steps of claim 1, wherein an audio signal is processed to detect a wakeup word, some condition of acceptability is determined, and when that condition is not met, the user is prompted for additional input. Accordingly, the rejections relying on Pi are maintained.
Regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Rishi, Applicant argues, "Rishi simply compares received audio with a stored wake-up phrase to wake the device and, after the device has already been awakened, performs a separate biometric authentication process using voice profile data and a rendered security token… [the combination of Pi and Rishi] does not teach or suggest the recognition process described in amended independent claims 1 and 16."
Rishi is relied upon to demonstrate the elements of the dependent claims. In doing so, Rishi shows that such methods are known in the art, and thus a person having skill in the art could reasonably combine the methods established by Pi and Rishi to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant's argument is moot, as Rishi is not relied upon to teach any elements of claims 1 or 16. The rejections relying on Rishi are maintained.
Regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Li, Applicant argues, "Li implements voiceprint recognition itself and does not disclose or suggest the claimed recognition process that selectively invokes human-computer interaction only after the recognition result indicates a wake-up decision remains undetermined… [the combination of Pi and Li] does not teach or suggest the recognition process described in amended claims 1 and 16."
Similarly to arguments against Rishi above, Applicant's argument is moot, as Li is not relied upon to teach any elements of claims 1 or 16. Li is cited to demonstrate the elements of the dependent claims that are known in the art, and therefore obvious to combine with the teachings of Pi. Accordingly, the rejections relying on Li are maintained.
Regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Chen, Applicant argues, "Chen does not teach or suggest the amended recognition process that first determines whether the wake-up decision is undetermined and only then initiates human-computer interaction with the user… [the combination of Pi and Chen] will not teach or suggest the recognition process described in amended independent claims 1 and 16."
Similarly to arguments against Rishi above, Applicant's argument is moot, as Chen is not relied upon to teach any elements of claims 1 and 16. Chen is cited to demonstrate the elements of the dependent claims that are known in the art, and therefore obvious to combine with the teachings of Pi. Accordingly, the rejections relying on Chen are maintained.
Regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Han, Applicant argues, "Han does not disclose or suggest using a recognition result produced by machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition to determine whether the wake-up decision is undetermined before initiating human-computer interaction… [the combination of Pi and Han] does not teach or suggest the recognition process described in amended independent claims 1 and 16."
Similarly to arguments against Rishi above, Applicant's argument is moot, as Han is not relied upon to teach any elements of claims 1 and 16. Han is cited to demonstrate the elements of the dependent claims that are known in the art, and therefore obvious to combine with the teachings of Pi. Accordingly, the rejections relying on Han are maintained.
Regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Geng, Applicant argues, "Geng […] improves the wake-word recognition model through cloud-based retraining rather than updating a local voiceprint template library after a user-confirmed wake-up decision… [the combination of Pi and Geng] does not teach or suggest the recognition process in amended independent claims 1 and 16."
Applicant's argument is moot, as Geng is relied upon to reject claim 15, which now depends from claim 10, which stands objected to but otherwise allowable.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a computer is invoked merely as a tool to execute an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an abstract idea is merely applied on a generic computer without any element that would otherwise preclude performance of the abstrac.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “A method for waking up an electronic device, wherein the method is applied to the electronic device and comprise:
based on determining that a received audio signal comprises a wakeup word, performing machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the received audio signal, wherein the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition includes determining whether the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word satisfies one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device;
obtaining a recognition result from performing machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition, wherein the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word (i) satisfies the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, (ii) does not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, or (iii) cannot be determined to satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device; and
based on the recognition result indicating the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word cannot be determined to either satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, outputting prompt information to a user for guiding the user to wake up the electronic device.”
The limitations of “determining whether the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word satisfies one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device” and “outputting prompt information to a user,” as drafted cover mental activities which can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Taken individually, or as a whole, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of asking someone to restate a request, answering a phone call, or helping another person operate their electronic device.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be performed mentally, and no additional features in the claims provide a practical application of the mental process or a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform voice interaction with the electronic device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device;the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform a preset action in a photographing range of a photographing device on a target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device;
the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform an operation in a target interface displayed by the target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device; or
the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform an operation on a target physical button on the target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device.”
The limitations of “guide the user to perform voice interaction with the electronic device,” “guide the user to perform a preset action in a photographing range of a photographing device on a target device,” “guide the user to perform an operation in a target interface displayed by the target device,” and “guide the user to perform an operation on a target physical button on the target device,” as drafted covers activity that is well-understood and routine in the art.
The recited methods are well-understood and readily available to a person having ordinary skill in the art of mobile device operation. Speaking, gesturing, swiping or pushing a button are each common methods of unlocking or activating mobile devices like phones. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 2, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 2, “wherein the target device is the electronic device or a first device communicating with the electronic device.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim depends from claim 3, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1-3, “wherein a user account of the electronic device is the same as that of the first device.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the outputting the prompt information to the user comprises:
outputting voice prompt information to the user; or
displaying a target interface to the user, wherein the target interface comprises the prompt information.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the outputting the prompt information to the user comprises:
transmitting indication information to a first device, wherein the indication information indicates the first device to output the prompt information to the user.”
The limitation of “transmitting indication information to a first device,” as drafted describes extra-solution activity. This limitation does not provide any inventive concept as integrated with the preceding claims and recites post-solution actions that are merely nominal or tangential to the invention. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim depends from claim 3, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1-3, “wherein the first device comprises a mobile phone and/or a watch.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word does not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device;
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, and voiceprint recognition succeeds, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word satisfies the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device; or
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, and voiceprint recognition fails, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word cannot be determined to satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim depends from claim 8, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 8, “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal comprises:
performing machine sound recognition on the audio signal; and
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim depends from claim 8, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 8, “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal comprises:
inputting the audio signal to a voiceprint identification model to obtain a first result and voiceprint feature information of the audio signal, wherein the first result indicates whether the audio signal is a machine sound; and
based on the first result indicating that the audio signal is not a machine sound, performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal based on the voiceprint feature information of the audio signal and a voiceprint template library.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing machine sound recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates not to wake up the electronic device;
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, the recognition result indicates to wake up the electronic device; or
based on it being not determined whether the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates that whether to wake up the electronic device is not determined.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that voiceprint recognition succeeds, the recognition result indicates to wake up the electronic device; or
based on it being determined that voiceprint recognition fails, the recognition result indicates that whether to wake up the electronic device is not determined.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “further comprising: obtaining response information that is input by the user based on the prompt information; and
determining, based on the response information, whether to wake up the electronic device.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim depends from claim 13, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 13, “wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform the preset action in the photographing range of the photographing device on the target device, and before the obtaining the response information that is input by the user based on the prompt information, the method further comprises: starting the photographing device on the electronic device.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work carried out by generic computer hardware. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim depends from claim 10, and thus recites the limitations of claims 1 and 10, “wherein the electronic device stores the voiceprint template library, and the method further comprises: based on it being determined to wake up the electronic device according to the response information, updating the voiceprint template library based on the audio signal.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with the preceding claims, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of note taking. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 16-20, system claims 16-20 and method claims 1-5 are related as a method and system of using the same, with each system element’s function corresponding to the method step. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1-5.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by China Invention Application 109256134 to Pi (hereinafter, "Pi").
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Pi teaches a method and system for waking up an electronic device, wherein the method is applied to the electronic device and comprise:
based on determining that a received audio signal comprises a wakeup word, performing machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the received audio signal, wherein the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition includes determining whether the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word satisfies one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device (page 3, "As shown in FIG. 1, the voice wake-up method comprising:
step S100, collecting the user recording and pre-processing, after the pre-processing recording data for calculating and identifying to obtain the identification result and the confidence level;);
obtaining a recognition result from performing machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition, wherein the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word (i) satisfies the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, (ii) does not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, or (iii) cannot be determined to satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device (step S200, judging whether the confidence level reaches a preset confidence threshold, if so, triggering the first type awakened, if in doubt the result, going to step S300, wherein the result is in doubt confidence close to but does not reach the reliability threshold value;"); and
based on the recognition result indicating the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word cannot be determined to either satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device, outputting prompt information to a user for guiding the user to wake up the electronic device (page 3, "step S300, judging whether there is doubt event record same in the latest predetermined time, if so, triggering the second type of wakeup, and feedback to the user for confirmation;").
Regarding claim 12, Pi further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal (page 2, "the voice wake-up method, wherein in the step A, the step of calculating and identifying the pre-processed recording databased on voice recognition algorithm of the speech engine."), wherein
based on it being determined that voiceprint recognition succeeds, the recognition result indicates to wake up the electronic device (page 3, "step S200, judging whether the confidence level reaches a preset confidence threshold, if so, triggering the first type awakened, if in doubt the result, going to step S300, wherein the result is in doubt confidence close to but does not reach the reliability threshold value;"); or
based on it being determined that voiceprint recognition fails, the recognition result indicates that whether to wake up the electronic device is not determined (page 3, "step S200, judging whether the confidence level reaches a preset confidence threshold, if so, triggering the first type awakened, if in doubt the result, going to step S300, wherein the result is in doubt confidence close to but does not reach the reliability threshold value;").
Regarding claim 13, Pi further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining response information that is input by the user based on the prompt information (page 3, "step S400, judging whether the user confirmation is false-wake up this second type of wake-up operation, if not, automatically reduce the reliability threshold, and learning corresponding to the user state and environmental conditions present."); and
determining, based on the response information, whether to wake up the electronic device (page 3, "Further, in the embodiment, in the step S400, by detecting a predetermined time whether there is received in triggering wake-up operation, judging whether the user has ensured that the second type of wake-up to wake-up operation.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi in view of WIPO Publication 2015/060867 to Rishi and Saha (hereinafter, "Rishi").
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Pi does not explicitly teach a method or system “wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform voice interaction with the electronic device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device;
the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform a preset action in a photographing range of a photographing device on a target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device;
the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform an operation in a target interface displayed by the target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device; or
the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform an operation on a target physical button on the target device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device,” and thus, Rishi in introduced.
Rishi teaches a method and system wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform voice interaction with the electronic device, to determine whether to wake up the electronic device (page 11, line 9, "In embodiments in which other input mechanisms are used, the computing device 102 may request the user to repeat the wake-up phrase to confirm that the wake-up phrase was accurately input (e.g., no unintended character transposition).").
Pi and Rishi are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Rishi for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Rishi further teaches a method and system wherein the target device is the electronic device or a first device communicating with the electronic device (page 3, line 6, "Referring now to FIG. 1, a system 100 for authenticated login by a user includes a computing device 102 and, in some embodiments, may include a network 104 and an authentication server 106," and page 6, line 11, "As discussed above, the computing device 102 may communicate, in some embodiments, with the authentication server 106 over the network 104.").
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Rishi further teaches a method and system wherein a user account of the electronic device is the same as that of the first device (page 9, line 26, "The login authentication module 216 receives audio input from the current user of the computing device 102 and determines whether the current user is an authorized user of the computing device 102 based on voice profile data 218 of the voice profile database 122. As discussed below, to do so, the login authentication module 216 retrieves voice profile data 218 of an authorized user of the computing device 102 and compares the received audio input to the retrieved voice profile data 218. More specifically, the login authentication module 216 retrieves voice data of each token character of the rendered security token from the voice profile database 122 and compares the retrieved voice data of each token character with the corresponding characters of the user's audio input. The communication module 208 handles the communication between the computing device 102 and remote devices (e.g., the authentication server 106) through the network 104. As discussed above, the communication module 208 may securely communicate with the authentication server 106 to receive the security token from the authentication server 106. In other embodiments, the voice profile database 122 may be stored remotely (e.g., in a cloud computing environment), and the communication module 208 may retrieved the voice profile data 218 over the network 104.").
Regarding claim 7, Rishi further teaches a method wherein the first device comprises a mobile phone and/or a watch (page 6, line 24, "For example, in some embodiments, the authentication server 106 may be similar to the computing device 102 as described above. More specifically, the authentication server 106 may be embodied as an enterprise-level server computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a cellular phone, smartphone, personal digital assistant, mobile Internet device, and/or any other computing/communication device.").
Claims 5-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi in view of WIPO Publication 2022/042635 to Li et al. (hereinafter, "Li").
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Pi does not explicitly teach a method or system “wherein the outputting the prompt information to the user comprises:
outputting voice prompt information to the user; or
displaying a target interface to the user, wherein the target interface comprises the prompt information,” and thus, Li is introduced.
Li teaches a method and system wherein the outputting the prompt information to the user comprises: outputting voice prompt information to the user; or
displaying a target interface to the user, wherein the target interface comprises the prompt information (page 20, "Optionally, before sending the wake-up instruction to the first audio device, the cloud may also send prompt information to the user's mobile terminal to prompt the user whether to confirm that the first audio device is to be woken up. When a confirmation operation is detected on the mobile terminal, a confirmation instruction is sent to the cloud for confirming wake-up of the first audio device.").
Pi and Li are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Li for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Pi does not explicitly teach the “method according to claim 1, wherein the outputting the prompt information to the user comprises: transmitting indication information to a first device, wherein the indication information indicates the first device to output the prompt information to the user,” however, Li teaches transmitting indication information to a first device, wherein the indication information indicates the first device to output the prompt information to the user (page 20, "Optionally, before sending the wake-up instruction to the first audio device, the cloud may also send prompt information to the user's mobile terminal to prompt the user whether to confirm that the first audio device is to be woken up. When a confirmation operation is detected on the mobile terminal, a confirmation instruction is sent to the cloud for confirming wake-up of the first audio device.").
Pi and Li are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Li for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pi in view of WIPO Publication 2021/136037 to Chen (hereinafter, "Chen").
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 8, Pi does not teach a method “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word does not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device;
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, and voiceprint recognition succeeds, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word satisfies the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device; or
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, and voiceprint recognition fails, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word cannot be determined to satisfy or not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device,” and thus, Chen is introduced.
Chen teaches a method wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates the received audio signal comprising the wakeup word does not satisfy the one or more conditions for waking up the electronic device (page 8, "S1101-S1102: According to some embodiments of the present application, the cloud server 300 may process the received message after receiving the voice wake-up message reported by the TV 201a, the speaker 201b, and the smart alarm clock201c, and then determine the sound source according to the processing result Whether 100 is a device in group 200… In the case where the sound source 100 is a device in the group 200 (that is, it is judged as yes in S1102), S1106: the cloud server 300 can directly judge the voice wake-up message reported by the TV 201a, the speaker 201b, and the smart alarm clock 201c as a false wake-up, And then execute S13 in FIG. 2: respectively send instructions to prohibit wake-up to the TV201a, speaker 201b, and smart alarm clock 201c that have received the wake-up voice.Through the above operations, it is possible to effectively prevent one (or more) electronic devices from waking up another one (or more) electronic devices in the same group.").
Pi and Chen are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Chen for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Chen further teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and voiceprint recognition on the audio signal comprises:
performing machine sound recognition on the audio signal; and
based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal (page 7, "For example, the electronic device 201 picks up a sound and performs voice recognition, and after judging that the picked up sound is a wake-up voice with a wake-up word, it can directly report the wake-up voice with a wake-up word to the cloud server 300, and the cloud server 300 obtains it.").
Regarding claim 11, Pi does not explicitly teach a method “wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing machine sound recognition on the audio signal, wherein
based on it being determined that the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates not to wake up the electronic device;based on it being determined that the audio signal is not a machine sound, the recognition result indicates to wake up the electronic device; or
based on it being not determined whether the audio signal is a machine sound, the recognition result indicates that whether to wake up the electronic device is not determined,” however, Chen teaches a method wherein the performing the machine sound recognition and/or voiceprint recognition on the audio signal to obtain the recognition result comprises:
performing voiceprint recognition on the audio signal (page 2, "the voice wake-up method, wherein in the step A, the step of calculating and identifying the pre-processed recording databased on voice recognition algorithm of the speech engine."), wherein
based on it being determined that voiceprint recognition succeeds, the recognition result indicates to wake up the electronic device (page 3, "step S200, judging whether the confidence level reaches a preset confidence threshold, if so, triggering the first type awakened, if in doubt the result, going to step S300, wherein the result is in doubt confidence close to but does not reach the reliability threshold value;").
Pi and Chen are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Chen for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi in view of China Invention Application 111651135 to Han et al. (hereinafter, "Han").
Regarding claim 14, Pi does not explicitly teach a method “wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform the preset action in the photographing range of the photographing device on the target device, and before the obtaining the response information that is input by the user based on the prompt information, the method further comprises: starting the photographing device on the electronic device,” and thus, Han is introduced.
Han teaches a method wherein the prompt information is used to guide the user to perform the preset action in the photographing range of the photographing device on the target device, and before the obtaining the response information that is input by the user based on the prompt information, the method further comprises: starting the photographing device on the electronic device (page 9, "For example: When the person gives more than 70 decibeck [sic], it will have an obvious sense of stress. so the environment sound decibel critical value is set to 60dB, when the sound sensor detects that the environment sound decibel value is greater than or equal to 60dB, sending the information to the control module; the control module controls the camera to open; the camera scans and detects the room environment, identifying the people in the room, and monitoring the mouth shape, the palm and other sound action information; when capturing the same mouth shape, the palm and other sound action information, sending signal to the control module; the control module actively controls to reduce the volume of the loudspeaker.").
Pi and Han are considered analogous because they are each concerned with wakeword processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pi with the teachings of Han for the purpose of improving user experience and reducing wakeup error rate. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, to overcome any above eligibility rejections.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon claim 10, and thus inheriting the allowability of claim 10, along with the features of the rejected base claim. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the preceding claims, to overcome any above eligibility rejections.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent 11,615,784 to Gao et al.
WIPO Publication 2020/102991 to Chen.
China Invention Publication 109410951 to Zhuang et al.
China Invention Publication 110459204 to Chen and Liu.
China Invention Publication 110738994 to Li et al.
China Invention Publication 111131601 to Gan et al.
China Invention Publication 112365883 to He et al.
China Invention Publication 112700782 to Li.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/SEAN THOMAS SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
