DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re claim 1, a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be operable to:
receive audio data that captures a spoken utterance, the audio data being generated by one or more microphones of an assistant device, the assistant device being included in an ecosystem of a plurality of assistant devices;
process the audio data to identify a semantic property of a query or command that is included in the spoken utterance;
determine whether the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices; and
in response to determining that the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices:
cause the given assistant device to satisfy the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a system, a method, and medium respectively however, these claims are directing to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “process …”; “determine…”; and “in response…matches…” are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A.
The other limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A wherein the limitation “receive…” recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The other limitations including “at least one processor…”; “memory storing…”; and “causing…” recite “apply it” with judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, these additional elements above recite “apply it” with judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). and recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2-10 and 12-19, these claims are not integrated into the practical application as they are either further detail the abstract idea limitations under Prong I step 2A or additional elements which insignificantly amount to the judicial exception under Prong II step 2A.
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 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 1-8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roshan Ghias et al. (U.S. 11,437,026 B1) in view of Womack et al. (U.S. 2018/0121738 A1).
Re claim 1, Roshan Ghias et al. disclose in Figures 1-13 a system comprising:
at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be operable to (e.g. abstract and Figures 1-2 wherein these components are generic components of any computer system):
receive audio data that captures a spoken utterance, the audio data being generated by one or more microphones of an assistant device (e.g. Figures 1-2 and col. 3 lines 15-30, col. 5 lines 20-45 and col. 18 lines 27-65 wherein spoken utterance is captured by microphone of device 110 in Figure 1);
process the audio data to identify a semantic property of a query or command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. col. 1 lines 5-20, col. 6 line 65 to col. 7 line 20, col. 9 line 55 to col. 10 line 5 wherein audio data is processed to identify command);
determine whether the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices (e.g. col. 5 line 45 to col. 6 line 17 and col. 9 lines 24-41 wherein spoken utterance is matching with given record); and
in response to determining that the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices (e.g. Figures 9-10 and 13 and col. 9 lines 24-41 and col. 23 line 39 to col. 24 line 12 wherein matching spoken utterance for commanding): cause the given assistant device to satisfy the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Figures 7 and 13 and col. 1 lines 5-24 and col. 7 lines 1-20 and lines 55-65 wherein it would cause to perform the intended functions corresponding to the spoken command).
Roshan Ghias et al. fail to disclose the assistant device being included in an ecosystem of a plurality of assistant devices.
However, Womack et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the assistant device being included in an ecosystem of a plurality of assistant devices (e.g. Figure 1, abstract, paragraphs [0011-0012, 0021, and 0073-0074] wherein plurality of devices in the ecosystem environment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the assistant device being included in an ecosystem of a plurality of assistant devices as conceptually seen in Womack et al.’s invention into Roshan Ghias et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently and accurately operate in dynamic environment.
Re claim 2, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the spoken utterance does not specify the given assistant device to be utilized in satisfying the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – abstract and col. 6 line 65 to col. 7 line 20 wherein no specific device is mentioned in the command).
Re claim 3, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the given semantic label of the given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices was previously inferred and assigned to the given assistant device, prior to receiving the audio data, based on one or more device-specific signals that are associated with the given assistant device (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 25 lines 15-45 with Figures 2 and 5).
Re claim 4, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the one or more device-specific signals that are associated with the given assistant device include one or more of: a plurality of queries or commands previously received at the given assistant device, ambient noise previously detected at the given assistant device speech reception was active, or respective unique identifiers for one or more of the plurality of assistant devices that are locationally proximate to the given assistant device in the ecosystem (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 25 lines 15-45 with Figures 2 and 5 wherein previous/historical data including commands from users are captured for analysis of current).
Re claim 5, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the instructions to process the audio data to identify the semantic property of the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Figures 7 and 13 and col. 1 lines 5-24 and col. 7 lines 1-20 and lines 55-65 wherein it would cause to perform the intended functions corresponding to the spoken command) comprise instructions to: process, using a speech recognition model, the audio data that captures the spoken utterance to generate recognized text corresponding to the spoken utterance (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – speech recognition engine 258 in Figure 2B and col. 11 line 55 to col. 12 line 2); and process, using a semantic classifier, the recognized text to identify the semantic property of the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 25 lines 15-55).
Re claim 6, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the instructions to process the audio data to identify the semantic property of the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Figures 7 and 13 and col. 1 lines 5-24 and col. 7 lines 1-20 and lines 55-65 wherein it would cause to perform the intended functions corresponding to the spoken command) comprise instructions to: process, using a semantic classifier, the audio data that captures the spoken utterance to identify the semantic property of the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 25 lines 15-55).
Re claim 7, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose the instructions to determine whether the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices (e.g. Figures 7 and 13 and col. 1 lines 5-24 and col. 7 lines 1-20 and lines 55-65 wherein it would cause to perform the intended functions corresponding to the spoken command) comprise instructions to: generate an embedding corresponding to the semantic property of the query or the command that is included in the spoken utterance (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 19 line 40 col. 20 line 6); compare the embedding corresponding to the semantic property to a plurality of previously generated embeddings for a plurality of semantic labels corresponding to semantic labels for each of the plurality of assistant devices in the ecosystem (e.g. col. 14 line 46 to col. 15 line 17); and determine, based on comparing the embedding corresponding to the semantic property to the plurality of previously generated embeddings for the plurality of semantic labels corresponding to the semantic labels for each of the plurality of assistant devices in the ecosystem, whether the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 19 line 40 to col. 20 line 35).
Re claim 8, Roshan Ghias et al. in view of Womack et al. disclose determining that the semantic property of the query of the command that is included in the spoken utterance matches a given semantic label of a given assistant device that is included in the ecosystem of the plurality of assistant devices is based on determining a distance metric between the embedding corresponding to the semantic property and a given embedding (e.g. col. 24 line 40 to col. 25 line 3), of the plurality of previously generated embeddings for the plurality of semantic labels corresponding to the semantic labels for each of the plurality of assistant devices in the ecosystem, for the given assistant device satisfies a distance threshold (e.g. Roshan Ghias et al. – col. 16 line 65 to col. 17 line 40).
Re claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 17, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claims 7-8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 7-8 above.
Re claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11437026-B1
US-11151996-B2
US-10522134-B1
US-20190370390-A1
US-20190348041-A1
US-20180121738-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights