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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17, 20-21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2016/0232894 A1, “Park”).
As to claims 1, 9, 17, Park discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, usage information associated with another device different from the computing device (speech recognition apparatus 110 may receive information about a state of each controllable device 120, 130, 140, para. 0030-0031);
performing speech recognition using a plurality of voice commands that are based on the usage information (speech recognition apparatus 110 may obtain information about a grammar model with respect to at least one device based on the received state information, the grammar model information including command models for a device, and perform speech recognition to control at least one device based on the generated grammar model, para. 0031-0037); and
causing, based on a received audio input that comprises at least one voice command of the plurality of voice commands, performance of an action (controllable device receives a control signal from the speech recognition apparatus 110, para. 0040).
As to claims 4, 12, 20, Park discloses: determining, based on the usage information, one or more devices, wherein the causing the performance of the action comprises causing at least one of the one or more devices to perform the action (a control signal is transmitted to control a device based as a result of speech recognition based on user input ant the state of the device, para. 0132).
As to claims 5, 13, 21, Park discloses: wherein the usage information comprises an operational state of the another device (operation state of a device, para. 0018, 0125).
As to claims 8, 16, 24, Park discloses: further comprising the computing device receiving the usage information from the another device (speech recognition apparatus 110 may receive information about a state of each controllable device 120, 130, 140, para. 0030-0031).
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) 2, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kothari et al. (US 2020/0312317 A1, “Kothari”).
Park differs from claims 2, 10, 18 in that it does not disclose: wherein the plurality of voice commands is further based on a distance of the computing device from a controllable device, and wherein the causing performance of the action comprises causing the controllable device to perform the action.
Kothari teaches applying a command to a device based on distance (lamp located closest to the digital assistant computing device is controlled, para. 0097). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the above teaching of Kothari in order to determine which of a plurality of similar controllable devices is to be controlled.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Leblang et al. (US 10,536,287 B1, “Leblang”).
Park differs from claims 3, 11, 19 in that it does not disclose: wherein the plurality of voice commands is further based on detection of an individual.
Leblang teaches detecting an individual using voice identification, accessing user profile information based on the detected identification, and determining a particular device from among a group of devices to receive the command based on the user profile (col. 13, line 11 – col. 17, line 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the above teaching of Leblang in order to provide an improved control operation.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Melendo Casado et al. (US 2018/0061419 A1, “Casado”).
Park differs from claims 6, 14, 22 in that it does not disclose: wherein the usage information comprises an indication of content output by the another device.
Casado teaches processing a voice command based on content being output by another device, e.g. music being played by a device (para. 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the above teaching of Casado in order to control the appropriate device based on context, as taught by Casado (para. 0019).
As to claims 7, 15, 23, Park in view of Casado teaches: wherein the usage information is based on sound detected by a microphone (Casado: sounds from a television show are received by a microphone, para. 0035).
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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-24 of the present application are anticipated by claims 1-39 of the patent.
For example:
Claim 1 (present application)
Claims 1, 9 (US 12,183,337)
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, usage information associated with another device different from the computing device;
determining, by a computing device, information indicating content being output by another device in an environment associated with the computing device; (claim 1)
performing speech recognition using a plurality of voice commands that are based on the usage information; and
performing speech recognition using a subset of trigger commands, of a plurality of trigger commands, that are based on the indicated content; and (claim 1)
wherein the performing speech recognition using the subset of trigger commands is further based on an energy usage associated with listening for the subset of trigger commands. (claim 9)
causing, based on a received audio input that comprises at least one voice command of the plurality of voice commands, performance of an action.
causing, based on a received audio input that comprises at least one trigger command of the subset of trigger commands, performance of an action. (claim 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al. (US 2018/0173494 A1) teach trigger words based on context.
Hughes et al. (US 2018/0182390 A1) teach contextual hotwords.
Simkhada et al. (US 11,552,803 B1) teach command processing based on current device state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights