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.
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 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a “computer-implemented method of advertisement selection, the method comprising: recognizing, by a processor, words from speech of a specific user over a number of multi-session interactions between the specific user and a speech recognition system; computing a number of unique words uttered by the specific user during the multi-session interactions; classifying the specific user according to the number of unique words uttered during the multi-session interactions; and selecting an advertisement targeted to the classification of the specific user”.
The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitation in the claim can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement.
For example, the limitation “recognizing, by a processor, words from speech of a specific user over a number of multi-session interactions between the specific user and a speech recognition system” can be done by a person listening to multiple conversations with another person. The limitation “computing a number of unique words uttered by the specific user during the multi-session interactions” can be done by a person counting the number of specific words during the conversations. The limitation “classifying the specific user according to the number of unique words uttered during the multi-session interactions” can be done by a person categorizing people into a specific group based on the number of specific words spoken. Finally, the limitation “selecting an advertisement targeted to the classification of the specific user” can be done by person providing specific advertisements based on the determined category of people.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform the processing steps. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-5, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites a “computer-implemented method of advertisement selection, the method comprising: recognizing, by a processor, words from speech of a specific user over a number of multi-session interactions between the specific user and a speech recognition system; computing an average word length of the recognized words; classifying the specific user according to the average word length; and selecting an advertisement targeted to the classification of the specific user”.
The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitation in the claim can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement.
For example, the limitation “recognizing, by a processor, words from speech of a specific user over a number of multi-session interactions between the specific user and a speech recognition system” can be done by a person listening to multiple conversations with another person. The limitation “computing an average word length of the recognized words” can be done by a person estimating the number of words containing a particular number of syllables during the conversations. The limitation “classifying the specific user according to the average word length” can be done by a person categorizing people into a specific group based on the estimation. Finally, the limitation “selecting an advertisement targeted to the classification of the specific user” can be done by person providing specific advertisements based on the determined category of people.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform the processing steps. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 7-18, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites a “computer implemented method of advertisement selection, the method comprising: performing, by a processor, speech recognition to recognize words; matching the recognized words to keywords associated with advertisements in an advertisement database; and selecting, from the advertisement database, an advertisement having a keyword that matches at least one of the recognized words”.
The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitation in the claim can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement.
For example, the limitation “performing, by a processor, speech recognition to recognize words” can be done by a person listening to multiple conversations with another person. The limitations “matching the recognized words to keywords associated with advertisements in an advertisement database” and “selecting, from the advertisement database, an advertisement having a keyword that matches at least one of the recognized words” can be done by a person selecting specific advertisements from a data storage based on a number of keyword identified in the conversations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform the processing steps. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 19 is incorporated herein.
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)(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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilbert et al. (US Patent 8,411,830 B2).
Regarding Claim 19, Gilbert teaches a method of advertisement selection (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61), the method comprising:
performing, by a processor, speech recognition to recognize words (see Fig.4 (428) and Col. 12, Line 13-17);
matching the recognized words to one or more keywords associated with one or more advertisements in an advertisement database to identify a match (see Fig.4 1(430,431,432) and Col. 12, Line 14-22);
and selecting, from the advertisement database, an advertisement having a keyword that matches at least one of the recognized words (see Fig.4 (432), Col.12, Line 20-22 and Col. 12, Line 50- 54).
Regarding Claim 20, Gilbert teaches a system (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61) including: one or more processors (see Fig.2 (215) and Col.10, Line 42-52, server/computing device for executing application); and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform the method of Claim 19 (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 59-65).
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 1-2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. (US Patent 8,411,830 B2) in view of Garimella et al. (US Patent 9,892,726 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gilbert teaches a method of advertisement selection (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61), the method comprising:
recognizing, by a processor, words from user speech over a number of interactions (see Fig.4 (42.8) and Col. 12, Line 13-17);
computing a number of unique words uttered during the interactions (see Col.8, Line 30-34 and Col. 13, Line 4-15);
and selecting an advertisement targeted to the users (see Fig. (432), Col.12, Line 20- 22 and Col. 12, Line 50-54).
Gilbert fails to teach classifying the user by the number of unique words uttered during the interactions.
Garimella, however, teaches using keyword spotting to classify speakers of the audio captured during audio sessions with a speech recognition system (see Fig.2 (204,208), Col.4, Line 1-12 and Col.11, Line 11-17, speakers classified into a class, including specific gender and speakers of a specific language).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Gilbert’s method the step for classifying the user by the number of unique words uttered during the interactions. The motivation would be to determine and select specific advertisements for a specific class of users or the demographic.
Regarding Claim 2, Gilbert teaches selecting an advertisement targeted to specific users (see Fig. (432), Col.12, Line 20- 22 and Col. 12, Line 50-54), but fails to teach classifying the users by assigning an English proficiency score.
Garimella, however, teaches classifying the user according to speakers of a specific language (see Fig.2 (204,208), Col.4, Line 1-12 and Col.11, Line 11-17, speakers classified into a class, including specific gender and speakers of a specific language).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Gilbert’s method the step for classifying the users by assigning an English proficiency score. The motivation would be to provide advertisements in the English language to users that are identified as English speakers.
Regarding Claim 4, Gilbert further teaches providing the selected advertisement to the specific user in the form of media (see Col.7, Line 26-34, text, images, audio or videos).
Regarding Claim 5, Gilbert teaches a system (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61) including: one or more processors (see Fig.2 (215) and Col.10, Line 42-52, server/computing device for executing application); and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform the method of Claim 1 (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 59-65).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. (US Patent 8,411,830 B2) in view of Garimella et al. (US Patent 9,892,726 B1), and in further view of Hafeez (US Pub. 2015/0073923 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Gilbert and Garimella teach the method of Claim 1 but they fail to teach wherein the specific user is classified according to two or more of age, gender, English proficiency, education level and socio-economic status.
Hafeez, however, teaches providing specific advertisements to users based on gender and education level (see paragraph [0173]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 1 the step for classifying users based on gender and education level. The motivation would be to provide specific targeted advertisements to a particular demographic.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. (US Patent 8,411,830 B2) in view of DeBlois et al. (US Pub. 2014/0195901 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Gilbert teaches a method of advertisement selection (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61), the method comprising:
recognizing, by a processor, words from user speech over a number of interactions (see Fig.4 (42.8) and Col. 12, Line 13-17);
and selecting an advertisement targeted to the users (see Fig. (432), Col.12, Line 20- 22 and Col. 12, Line 50-54).
Gilbert fails to teach computing an average word length of the recognized words and classifying the users according to the average word length.
DeBlois, however, teaches determining the reading level of users based on computing the average word length of recognized words (see paragraph [0173]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Gilbert’s method the steps for computing an average word length of the recognized words and classifying the users according to the average word length. The motivation would be to determine and select specific advertisements for users based on their reading level or education level.
Regarding Claim 18, Gilbert teaches a system (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 55-61) including: one or more processors (see Fig.2 (215) and Col.10, Line 42-52, server/computing device for executing application); and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform the method of Claim 6 (see Fig.4 and Col.11, Line 59-65).
Claims 7-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. (US Patent 8,411,830 B2) in view of DeBlois et al. (US Pub. 2014/0195901 A1), and in further view of Hafeez (US Pub. 2015/0073923 A1).
Regarding Claims 7-11 and 13-17, Gilbert and DeBlois teach the method of Claim 1 but they fail to teach wherein the specific user is classified according to age, gender, English proficiency, education level and socio-economic status.
Hafeez, however, teaches providing specific advertisements to users based on age, gender, English proficiency, education level and socio-economic status (see paragraph [0173], education level, profession).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 1 the step for classifying users based on age, gender, English proficiency, education level and socio-economic status. The motivation would be to provide specific targeted advertisements to a particular demographic.
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