DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12165061 B2 and claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11429180 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps/functions as the claims in the instant application..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12165061 B2 and claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11429180 B2 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining elements would performs the same function as before. Omission and/or additional of elements and its functions in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same functions as before.
Claim Interpretation
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 sensor configured to …”, and “a controller configured to…” in claims 1 and 9
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong, III et al. (hereinafter Ganong) (US 20140274203 A1) in view of Nishio (US 5541590).
As to claim 1, Ganong teaches an electronic device comprising:
a sensor [microphones] configured to generate at least one sensing data [0080: “for example, audio signals receiving from one or more microphones in response to acoustic activity in the environment…”];
a dedicated artificial intelligence (AI) acceleration processor [0072: secondary processor] configured to generate a wake-up data to switch from a first mode to a second mode by processing the at least one sensing data by a trained artificial neural network model [0081] [0091] [00165: “explicit voice detection 820 determines that the user spoke a permissible explicit voice trigger. In response, voice response system 850 may transition the mobile device from the low power mode to an active mode…”]; and
a controller [0072: primary processor] configured to generate a control command based on the wake-up data [0165: “…activate the primary processor and/or otherwise ready the mobile device to perform any of its available functions.”];
wherein no power is supplied to the control unit during the first mode while a power is supplied to the control unit during the second mode [0072: “In this manner, the secondary processor may be able to dispense with some appreciable percentage of the received acoustic input without having to engage the primary processor, thus conserving power resources and allocating them on as-needed basis. This may be particularly useful when the mobile device is operating in a low power mode wherein the processor is powered down…”],
wherein the trained artificial neural network model is an artificial intelligence recognition model configured to output a determination data of performing specific function in response to the at least one sensing data [0081] [0091].
Ganong does not teach wherein the at least one sensing data includes one of an image data, a position data, a fingerprint recognition data, an infrared sensor sensing data.
Nishio teaches that sensing data includes one of an image data, a position data, a fingerprint recognition data, an infrared sensor sensing data in an intelligent recognition system [FIG. 4: image pick-up device] [abstract].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of utilizing camera as sensor as suggested in Nishio into Ganong to implement intelligent processing. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to improve flexibility and user experience by adding input means.
As to claim 2, Ganong teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a power source, wherein power is supplied from the power source to the sensor and the dedicated AI acceleration processor while no power is supplied from the power source to the controller during the first mode [0072: “In this manner, the secondary processor may be able to dispense with some appreciable percentage of the received acoustic input without having to engage the primary processor, thus conserving power resources and allocating them on as-needed basis. This may be particularly useful when the mobile device is operating in a low power mode wherein the processor is powered down…”] [0076: “When operating in a low power mode,…while at least one microphone remains at least partially on so as to continue to monitor the acoustic environment to receive acoustic input when the mobile device is operating in a low power mode.”]; and
wherein power is supplied from the power source to the sensor, the dedicated Al acceleration processor, and the controller during the second mode [“0165: “the voice response system may wake-up the mobile device to the same extent the mobile device is activated when a user performs the manual actions required to wake-up the device (e.g., the voice response system may turn on the display, activate the primary processor and/or otherwise ready the mobile device to perform any of its available functions.)”].
As to claim 3, Nishio further teaches wherein the trained artificial neural network model is embedded in the dedicated Al acceleration processor [col. 10, lines 38-44: “In the above mentioned second embodiment, the neural network already trained can be coded by using a programming language such as C-language. The network may be used as an imperative application system or packaged as a control microprocessor. In this event, the network can be memorized in a read only memory for every one type of commercial vehicles.].
As to claim 4, Nishio further teaches wherein the trained artificial neural network is trained by machine learning technique [col. 2, lines 61-67: “The neural network comprises at least an input layer and an output layer, and the training data are supplied to the input layer while the output layer is supplied with, as teacher data, flags representing expected and unexpected crash, respectively, of the vehicle. In addition, the neural network may comprise a two-dimensional self-organizing competitive learning layer as an intermediate layer.”]
As to claim 5, Ganong teaches Ganong teaches wherein the electronic device is one of a smart phone, a computer, a server, a display device, a refrigerator, an air conditioner, a home appliance, a vehicle, an illumination device, and a communication device [0041: “mobile device 100 is illustrated as having a number of components characteristic of a ‘smart phone.’…”].
As to claim 6, Ganong teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a first function circuit that is an always-on circuit turned-on even when the electronic device is turned-off [0073: “the above described examples of multi-state processing may facilitate the implementation of an ‘always-on’ voice response system that can monitor and respond to voice commands while…”].
As to claim 7, Ganong teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a first function circuit [voice response system] and a second function circuit [second stage processing], wherein the first function circuit is turned-on, and wherein the second function circuit is turned-off to reduce power consumption and then is turned-on when the control command is received from the control unit [0074: “As such, the voice response system may incrementally or progressively transition the mobile device from a low power mode to an active mode by activating resources only as needed. For example, the voice response system may activate a secondary processor to perform one or more processing stages while leaving the primary processor in a low power mode until and/or unless the primary processor is needed.”] [0076: “When the voice response system determines that the acoustic input likely includes speech and/or a voice command, the voice response system may turn on one or more additional microphones.”].
As to claim 8, Ganong teaches wherein the controller is one of a CPU or an application processor (AP) configured to control an overall operation of the electronic device [0037: “…the mobile device’s primary processor (e.g., main central processing unit (CPU)) may be engaged to perform one or more subsequent processing stages.”].
As to claims 9-16, they relate to system claims comprising the similar subject matters claimed in claims 1-8. Therefore, they are rejected under the same reasons applied to claims 1-8.
As to claim 17-20, , they relate to apparatus claims comprising the similar subject matters claimed in claims 1-3 and 8. Therefore, they are rejected under the same reasons applied to claims 1-3 and 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/09/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nishio (US 5541590).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUXING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/XUXING CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights