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 .
This Office Action is in response to the submission filed October 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 7, 2025; January 31, 2025; May 12, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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. Claims 1 and 13 are directed to methods for recognizing spoken intentions and performing the actions corresponding to the intentions. The claims recite limitations for
receiving a first voice when the voice assistant is in a sleep state, which is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person hearing an utterance;
determining that the first voice matches a first intention in a first list, wherein the first list comprises one or more intentions corresponding to one or more voice instructions; performing an operation corresponding to the first intention, which can be achieved by the person understanding what was spoken and compare it with a list of known commands or requests;
waking up the voice assistant, which can be achieved by a person uttering an activation command;
receiving a second voice when the voice assistant is in a wake-up state is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person hearing an utterance; and
recognizing a second intention in the second voice can be achieved by the person understanding what was spoken and compare it with a list of known commands or requests, and performing an operation corresponding to the second intention can be achieved by the person fulfilling the operation corresponding to the understood utterance.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer, voice assistant and generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer, voice assistant and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer, voice assistant and generic computer components to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing or manipulating functions and commands for the recognized utterances, steps for repeating the processing for additional heard and recognized utterances, determining recognition errors via mathematical calculations, updating and/or editing command lists, prompting users, and displaying or providing text/data to the user. These steps can be achieved by a person using mental processes and/or pen and paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200380971), hereinafter Lin.
Lin teaches methods for activating voice assistants. Regarding claim 1, LIN teaches a method, applied to an electronic device comprising a voice assistant [para 0014, an electronic device with a voice assistant], and the method comprising: receiving a first voice when the voice assistant is in a sleep state [voice signal received at microphone 12 – para 0019]; determining that the first voice matches a first intention in a first list, wherein the first list comprises one or more intentions corresponding to one or more voice instructions [as, when the input voice is a certain loudness level, the signal is considered to be a valid attempt at waking up the device, and then the voice signal keyword is compared to a list of valid voice signal keywords – para 0019; voice recognition circuit 16]; performing an operation corresponding to the first intention [as, listening for a first voice to wake-up the device, by listening for a certain voice signal/value – para 0016; that triggers the device to wakeup – para 0016, from a sleep state – see para 0021]; waking up the voice assistant [as, listening for a first voice to wake-up the device, by listening for a certain voice signal/value – para 0016; that triggers the device to wakeup – para 0016, from a sleep state – see para 0021]; receiving a second voice when the voice assistant is in a wake-up state [as, listening for a first voice to wake-up the device, by listening for a certain voice signal/value – para 0016; that triggers the device to wakeup – para 0016, from a sleep state – see para 0021]; and recognizing a second intention in the second voice [as, when the input voice is a certain loudness level, the signal is considered to be a valid attempt at waking up the device, and then the voice signal keyword is compared to a list of valid voice signal keywords – para 0019; voice recognition circuit 16], and performing an operation corresponding to the second intention [after the assistant is activated, performing word recognition/understanding – see para 0029 – “Activate my Microsoft Cortana”; para 0032 – user notified the system is ready for user interaction; also see para 0033, wherein the ‘semantic determination’ may be improved – by definition, semantic extraction is word/phrase/intent understanding].
Regarding claim 2, LIN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein neither the first voice nor the second voice comprises a wake-up word used to wake up the voice assistant [when the input is not a valid wake-up word type input, the system cycles out of, the wake-up routine – see para 0030].
Regarding claim 3, LIN teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein determining that the first voice matches the first intention in the first list comprises: determining, by using a first voice recognition model, that the first voice matches the first intention in the first list, wherein the first voice recognition model is run when the voice assistant is in the sleep state [as, when the input voice is a certain loudness level, the signal is considered to be a valid attempt at waking up the device, and then the voice signal keyword is compared to a list of valid voice signal keywords – para 0019];
and wherein recognizing the second intention in the second voice comprises: recognizing the second intention in the second voice using a second voice recognition model, wherein the second voice recognition model is run when the voice assistant is in the wake-up state [as, activating the assistant, and the assistant interacts with the user – see para 0032, “Hi Tom, may I help you?”; the voice assistant is accessing a different vocabulary/language model, for interfacing with the user]; and wherein a size of the second voice recognition model is greater than a size of the first voice recognition model [the first voice recognition model is a voiceprint signal based comparison model, and the second recognition model is a natural language understanding model capable of ‘conversing’ with a user, also well known in the prior art as man-machine dialogue; examiner notes that it is notoriously old and very well known that voiceprint signal signature models are much smaller than natural language models used for man-machine dialogues, since the natural language models need to cover many more topics/subjects that the user may command/inquire, vs. stored voiceprints for authorized access].
Regarding claim 4, LIN teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein after waking up the voice assistant, the method further comprises: switching the voice assistant from the wake-up state to the sleep state when no voice is received in a first time period [as, providing a loop-out of the wake-up state after a failed wake-up procedure – see para 0030; according to para 0030, the loop returns to step s33 to wait for another wake-up signal; the laptop does not get out of the “sleep state” until there is a valid wake-up’; examiner also notes it is old and notoriously well known in the art to instill ‘timeout’ response periods, and reverting to a previous state – e.g., see Elkhatib et al (20220139379) teaching a timeout in the process, if a wakeword is not detected in a certain amount of time – para 0039].
Regarding claim 13, LIN teaches a method, applied to an electronic device comprising a voice assistant, the method comprising: receiving a first voice when the voice assistant is in a sleep state [as, listening for a first voice to wake-up the device, by listening for a certain voice signal/value – para 0016; that triggers the device to wakeup – para 0016, from a sleep state – see para 0021]; providing a first prompt in response to the first voice, wherein the first prompt prompts a user to speak a first instruction [after the assistant is activated, performing word recognition/understanding – see para 0029 – “Activate my Microsoft Cortana”; para 0032 – user notified the system is ready for user interaction; also see para 0033, wherein the ‘semantic determination’ may be improved – by definition, semantic extraction is word/phrase/intent understanding]; and receiving a second voice, determining that the second voice matches the first instruction, and performing an operation corresponding to the first instruction [after the assistant is activated, performing word recognition/understanding – see para 0029 – “Activate my Microsoft Cortana”; also see para 0033, wherein the ‘semantic determination’ may be improved – by definition, semantic extraction is word/phrase/intent understanding].
Regarding claim 14, LIN teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein neither the first voice nor the second voice comprises a wake-up word used to wake up the voice assistant [when the input is not a valid wake-up word type input, the system cycles out of, the wake-up routine – see para 0030].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Lin et al (20200380971), herein after “LIN”, in view of Jaygarl et al (20200051555), herein after “JAYGARL”.
Regarding claim 15, LIN teaches an eventual interface to an assistant [see para 0032, wherein the assistant asks “Hi Tom, how may I help you?”, which initiates a dialog between the assistant and the user]; however, LIN does not explicitly teach displaying the exchange between the assistant and the user (this is toward the claim language “displaying, on a user interface of the electronic device, text information corresponding to the first instruction, OR prompting, through voice broadcast, the user to speak a voice that matches the first instruction”). JAYGARL teaches a voice-based intelligent assistance service program (para 0012) that actually displays the interaction between the voice based assistant and the user [see para 0077, also including the text of the received voice input, and the result of the assistant]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of user-assistant interfaces at the time of the invention to further detail the voice assistant found in LIN with the added step of displaying the dialog results, as taught by JAYGARL, because it would advantageously show the state of the dialog at each turn, which would show when the request/voice input would contain incompatible information [JAYGARL, para 0011, last half, and para 0006] .
Regarding claim 16, the combination of LIN and JAYGARL teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein providing the first prompt in response to the first voice comprises: determining, in response to the first voice by using a first voice recognition model, that the first voice is associated with the first instruction, wherein the first voice recognition model is run when the voice assistant is in the sleep state [see LIN, after the assistant is activated, performing word recognition/understanding – see para 0029 – “Activate my Microsoft Cortana”; also see para 0033, wherein the ‘semantic determination’ may be improved – by definition, semantic extraction is word/phrase/intent understanding]; and providing the first prompt based on an association relationship between the first voice and the first instruction [see LIN, as, activating the assistant, and the assistant interacts with the user – see para 0032, “Hi Tom, may I help you?”; the voice assistant is accessing a different vocabulary/language model, for interfacing with the user].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of LIN and JAYGARL teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein determining that the second voice matches the first instruction comprises: determining, by using the first voice recognition model, that the second voice matches the first instruction [see LIN, using voice print matching to validate the wake-up -- and then the voice signal keyword is compared to a list of valid voice signal keywords – para 0019].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of LIN and JAYGARL teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein before determining that the second voice matches the first instruction, the method further comprises: waking up the voice assistant; and wherein determining that the second voice matches the first instruction comprises:
when the voice assistant is in a wake-up state, recognizing the first instruction in the second voice by using a second voice recognition model, wherein the second voice recognition model is run when the voice assistant is in the wake-up state [as, activating the assistant, and the assistant interacts with the user – see para 0032, “Hi Tom, may I help you?”; the voice assistant is accessing a different vocabulary/language model, for interfacing with the user]; and a size of the second voice recognition model is greater than a size of the first voice recognition model [the first voice recognition model is a voiceprint signal based comparison model, and the second recognition model is a natural language understanding model capable of ‘conversing’ with a user, also well known in the prior art as man-machine dialogue; examiner notes that it is notoriously old and very well known that voiceprint signal signature models are much smaller than natural language models used for man-machine dialogues, since the natural language models need to cover many more topics/subjects that the user may command/inquire, vs. stored voiceprints for authorized access].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12,19, 20 are 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 and if the rejections under 35 USC 101 can be overcome.
As per claim 5 (and dependents 6-12), the claim features toward a third voice in the sleep state is processed and determining a sentence pattern, and that there is no entity that matches a first entity of the third voice, and waking up the voice assistant, processing the third voice for a third intention; is not explicitly taught by the prior art of record. See detailed mapping above, toward the LIN and JAYGARL references, as representative prior art, and not teaching the above limitations.
Similar rationale applies to dependent claim 19 (and dependent claim 20 on claim 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
As to the feature of timeouts for responses in dialogues/wakewords:
Elkhatib et al (20220139379) teaching a timeout in the process, if a wakeword is not detected in a certain amount of time – para 0039
As to the feature of displaying dialogues between the user and assistants:
Ha et al (20200125603) teaches a wakeup utterance with natural language understanding processing – abstract, and displaying as such – para 0105.
As to the feature of wakewords/sleep states:
Cheng et al (20190172457) teaches activating different modes on a laptop via a voice-assistant system (abstract), including sleep and wake-up modes – para0007,0008
Tukka et al (20190371342) see Fig. 1a, for triggering wakewords from waveforms, user response times, timeouts, and return to sleep mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights