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 1-4, 8-15, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 in view of Shin et al. (US Pub.2021/0249018 A1).
A comparison of the claims from the current application and U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 is shown below.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085
A method comprising:
generating, based on a plurality of voice command templates, one or more candidate voice commands, wherein each candidate voice command comprises a verb and metadata corresponding to a content item, from a plurality of content items that are identified by a server based on a search performed;
generating, for each candidate voice command, a respective recall score based at least in part on a number of matching phonetic features in a respective candidate voice command;
selecting, based on the generated respective recall score for each candidate voice command, a candidate voice command with the highest respective recall score, wherein the selected candidate voice command is from a first voice command template, from the plurality of voice command templates;
determining whether the selected voice command with the highest respective recall score, when outputted to a user interface, was used by a user associated with the user interface;
and increasing either a use count of the selected voice command or recommendation for the first template in response to determining whether the selected voice command was used.
A method comprising:
identifying a plurality of content items available for consumption, wherein the identification is based on a search performed by a server based at least in part on a user profile associated with a user interface correlated to a content platform;
retrieving metadata for each of the plurality of content items;
generating, based on a plurality of voice command templates, one or more candidate voice commands, wherein each candidate voice command comprises a verb and metadata corresponding to a content item of the plurality of content items;
generating, for each candidate voice command, a respective recall score based at least in part on a number of matching phonetic features in a respective candidate voice command;
selecting a candidate voice command based on recall scores of the one or more candidate voice commands;
and generating for output the selected candidate voice command on the user interface of a computing device that is correlated to the content platform.
12. A system for suggesting voice-based commands to a user, the system comprising:
control circuitry configured to execute instructions to:
generate, based on a plurality of voice command templates, one or more candidate voice commands, wherein each candidate voice command comprises a verb and metadata corresponding to a content item, from a plurality of content items that are identified by the control circuity based on a search performed;
generate, for each candidate voice command, a respective recall score based at least in part on a number of matching phonetic features in a respective candidate voice command;
select, based on the generated respective recall score for each candidate voice command, a candidate voice command with the highest respective recall score, wherein the selected candidate voice command is from a first voice command template, from the plurality of voice command templates;
determine whether the selected voice command with the highest respective recall score, when outputted to a user interface, was used by a user associated with the user interface;
and increase either a use count of the selected voice command or recommendation for the first template in response to determining whether the selected voice command was used.
1. A method comprising:
identifying a plurality of content items available for consumption, wherein the identification is based on a search performed by a server based at least in part on a user profile associated with a user interface correlated to a content platform;
retrieving metadata for each of the plurality of content items;
generating, based on a plurality of voice command templates, one or more candidate voice commands, wherein each candidate voice command comprises a verb and metadata corresponding to a content item of the plurality of content items;
generating, for each candidate voice command, a respective recall score based at least in part on a number of matching phonetic features in a respective candidate voice command;
selecting a candidate voice command based on recall scores of the one or more candidate voice commands;
and generating for output the selected candidate voice command on the user interface of a computing device that is correlated to the content platform.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitations for “selecting a candidate voice command based on recall scores of the one or more candidate voice commands and generating for output the selected candidate voice command on the user interface of a computing device that is correlated to the content platform”.
Shin, however, teaches tracking the number of times a service corresponding to a voice command is selected (see Fig.9 (902) and paragraph [0221]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitations for “selecting a candidate voice command based on recall scores of the one or more candidate voice commands and generating for output the selected candidate voice command on the user interface of a computing device that is correlated to the content platform”. The motivation would be to track the usage or history information for a particular voice command.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitation for “increasing the use count of the selected voice command in the first template in response to determining that the selected voice command was used by the user”.
Shin, however, teaches tracking the number of times a service corresponding to a voice command is selected (see Fig.9 (902) and paragraph [0221]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitation for “increasing the use count of the selected voice command in the first template in response to determining that the selected voice command was used by the user”. The motivation would be to track the usage or history information for a particular voice command.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitation for “increasing the recommendation of the selected voice command in the first template in response to determining that the selected voice command was not used by the user”.
Shin, however, teaches tracking the number of times a service corresponding to a suggested voice command was not selected (see Fig.9 (902) and paragraph [0221]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitation for “increasing the recommendation of the selected voice command in the first template in response to determining that the selected voice command was not used by the user”. The motivation would be to track the usage or history information for a candidate voice command.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitation “wherein the determination whether the selected voice command was used is performed prior to generating, based on a plurality of voice command templates, a subsequent voice command”.
Shin, however, teaches receiving a subsequent voice command following a first voice command corresponding to a suggested service that was not accepted or selected (see Fig.5 (S410,S440,S560) and paragraphs [0165-0166]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitation for determining whether the selected voice command was used is performed prior to generating, based on a plurality of voice command templates, a subsequent voice command. The motivation would be to present a second voice command option when the first suggested voice command is not selected.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 is similar to Claims 8 and 9 of the current application.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 is similar to Claims 9 and 20 of the current application.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 is similar to Claim 10 of the current application.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes the limitation of Claim 10 of the current application.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 in view of Sharifi (US Pub.2015/0161990 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitations for “determining whether the use count of the selected voice command or the recommendation for the first template was increased; and in response to determining that the use count of the selected voice command or the recommendation for the first template was increased: determining whether the increase exceeds a threshold; and in response to determining that the increase exceeds the threshold, pausing or ending a processing of the candidate voice commands”.
Sharifi, however, teaches promoting a voice command as hotword when it is determined that the voice command has been issued a threshold number of times (see paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitations for “determining whether the use count of the selected voice command for the first template was increased; and in response to determining that the use count of the selected voice command for the first template was increased: determining whether the increase exceeds a threshold; and in response to determining that the increase exceeds the threshold, pausing or ending a processing of the candidate voice commands”. The motivation would be to promote a candidate voice command as a hotword or preset voice command when the command has been issued a specific number of times.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 in view of Coccaro et al. (US Patent 8,453,058 B1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 includes similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12 of the current application but does not include the limitations for “determining that terms included in a voice command template, from the plurality of voice command templates, do not meet an expected phonetic feature balance; and modifying an order of terms included in the voice command template to generate post natural language processing modified suggestion template in response to determining that terms included in the voice command template do not meet the expected phonetic feature balance”.
Coccaro, however, teaches using fuzzy matching to match terms and phrases of audio commands that would otherwise not be perfect matches, and determining the near match voice commands to be the same command (see Col.14, Line 54 – Col.15, Line 3).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before eh effective filing date of the application, to include to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,085 the limitations for “determining that terms included in a voice command template, from the plurality of voice command templates, do not meet an expected phonetic feature balance; and modifying an order of terms included the voice command template to generate post natural language processing modified suggestion template in response to determining that terms included in the voice command template do not meet the expected phonetic feature balance”. The motivation would be to suggest a candidate voice command when there is a mismatch with the terms from a voice command template and the user voice command.
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights