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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to learn based on explicit or implicit feedback by the user to correct or incorrect conversation classifications by the machine-learning model”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) elements which under their broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained below.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim including its dependencies recites an electronic device comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to cause the electronic device to:
(c) capture, via a microphone, audio data of a conversation including a user of the electronic device; and
(d) in response to determining that the user does not intend to utilize a virtual assistant of the electronic device, ignore, by the virtual assistant, the conversation.
(e) wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining that another electronic device is in use for the conversation.
(f) wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining, using a machine-learning model with natural language processing or context recognition, the conversation is a personal discussion.
(g) wherein the machine-learning model is configured to learn based on explicit or implicit feedback by the user to correct or incorrect conversation classifications by the machine-learning model.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Recites generic computer components to receive audio data of a conversation. A human can listen to a conversation.
Determination that a user does not want to engage and assistant ignoring the conversation. A human can make that determination and a human can choose to ignore a conversation.
Determination that a user is using another electronic device for conversation. A human can make the determination that another individual is on a call with someone else and the conversation is not directed towards them.
Determination that conversation is a personal conversation using a machine learning model. A human can make a determination if a heard conversation is personal
Model learns using feedback from a user to improve conversation classification. A human can learn using feedback to improve how a conversation is classified
Additional elements recited are : memory, processor, microphone, virtual assistant and machine learning model.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories
of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a
judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception
when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations (c)-(g) that those elements fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion . See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Limitation c is directed to a mental step because a human can observe and listen to a conversation. Limitation d is directed to a mental step because a human can make the determination to ignore a conversation. Limitation e is directed to a mental step because a human can observe and make the determination that a conversation is not directed to them but to another device. Limitation f is directed to a mental step because a human can make a determination if a conversation is personal. Limitation g is directed to a mental step because a human can learn based on feedback to improve how they classify a conversation. Hence, these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the
claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional elements recited are : memory, processor, microphone, virtual assistant and machine learning model.
The additional elements of memory, processor, virtual assistant and machine learning model disclosed provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, the additional elements of memory, processor, virtual assistant and machine learning model were found to represent nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The recited additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As such Claim 7 is patent illegible.
The analysis above is applicable to Claims 1,2,5,12,13,17 and 20.
Regarding Claim 3 and 14, a human can determine the direction a user is facing.
Regarding Claim 4 and 15, a human can determine if the user is speaking to someone else.
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, a human can pick up on emotional cues and tones when classifying a conversation.
Regarding Claim 8, a human can update their thoughts regarding a user based on a conversation.
Regarding Claim 9 and 19, a human can determine if a condition is satisfied by a conversation
Regarding Claim 10 and 18, a human can re-prompt a user to double-check
Regarding Claim 11, the devices claimed are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 9, 11, 12-13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Ady(US PGPub US 20140372126).
Regarding Claim 1, Ady teaches an electronic device comprising:
a memory; and one or more processors(first user device 100 can include a processor integrated circuit (IC) 114[0019]) coupled with the memory(Connected to processor IC 114 is memory 120[0019]) and configured to cause the electronic device to: capture, via a microphone(First user device 100 also comprises one or more input/output devices, including one or more input devices, such as camera 148, sound receiving components 149 depicted as a front microphone 150 and back microphone 152[0023]), audio data of a conversation including a user of the electronic device; and in response to determining that the user does not intend to utilize a virtual assistant of the electronic device(the detection indicates that another user device is also responding to the first pre-established, audible activation command. Thus, in response to detecting multiple devices in block 412, the always-on privacy mode utility 122 in block 418 triggers a privacy mode for the first user device 100.[0052]), ignore, by the virtual assistant, the conversation(the privacy mode can cause the user device 100 to revert to a hand-held mode, disabling always-on voice commands[0053], Fig 4).
Claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 2, Ady teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining that another electronic device is in use for the conversation(the detection indicates that another user device is also responding to the first pre-established, audible activation command. Thus, in response to detecting multiple devices in block 412, the always-on privacy mode utility 122 in block 418 triggers a privacy mode for the first user device 100.[0052]).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, Ady teaches the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to determining that the user intends to utilize the virtual assistant, cause the electronic device to perform, using the virtual assistant, an action(Perform voice-activated command 416 [Fig 4]) or update a personal knowledge base associated with the user based on the conversation.
Regarding Claim 9, Ady teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user intends to utilize the virtual assistant by determining one or more conditions of a predefined user setting(In block 420, the always-on privacy mode utility 122 accesses privacy mode settings that dictate how the always-on privacy mode utility 122 configures the first user device 100 when in a privacy mode.[0052], Interpretation: If privacy mode settings cause “Revert to handheld mode”, then device will “disabling always-on voice commands[0053]”, else continue to 426) or a learned user preference are satisfied by the conversation.
Regarding Claim 11, Ady teaches the electronic device comprises one or more of a smartphone, a mobile phone(The first user device 100 can be one of a host of different types of devices, including but not limited to, a mobile cellular phone or smart-phone, a laptop, a net-book, an ultra-book, and/or a tablet computing device.[0018]), a smart watch, a laptop, a computer, a tablet, a smart speaker, a smart home device, or an infotainment system in an automobile.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ady(US PGPub US 20140372126) in view of Garcia(WO 2019190646).
Regarding Claim 3, Ady as in Claim 1 does not teach the one or more processors are further configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by at least one of: determining that the user is not in proximity of the electronic device; or determining that the user is not facing the electronic device.
However, Garcia teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by at least one of: determining that the user is not in proximity of the electronic device; or determining that the user is not facing the electronic device(detects user 11 lO’s eye gaze with respect to device 1120 at any given time. Optical sensor 264 may detect, for example, that user 1130 is not looking at device 1120 while utterance 1134 is received by the virtual assistant operating on device 1120. As a result, the virtual assistant estimates, using the sensory data provided by optical sensor 264, that the likelihood utterance 1134 is not directed to the virtual assistant is high[0245]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady with the gaze detection of Garcia because it enhances a device’s operational efficiency[Garcia 0222].
Claim 14 recites similar limitations to Claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, Ady as in Claim 1 does not teach the one or more processors are further configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining that the user is speaking with another person.
However, Garcia teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining that the user is speaking with another person(As described in detail below, using various techniques, a virtual assistant can determine that an utterance is not directed to it and thus is to be disregarded. Such utterances can include, for example, user’s comments, an utterance that is directed from one user to another, or the like.[0222]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady with the device directed determination of Garcia because it enhances a device’s operational efficiency[Garcia 0222].
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to Claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ady(US PGPub US 20140372126) in view of Olladapu(US PGPub 20220303312).
Regarding Claim 5, Ady as in Claim 1 does not teach the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining, using a machine-learning model with natural language processing or context recognition, the conversation is a personal discussion(Similarly, the characteristic component 120 may use natural language processing to determine the conversation context based on words used by the user indicating they are engaged in a conversation which may involve personal, sensitive, or privacy information.[0020]).
However, Olladapu teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause the electronic device to determine that the user does not intend to utilize the virtual assistant by determining, using a machine-learning model with natural language processing or context recognition, the conversation is a personal discussion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady with the natural language processing of Olladapu because it would enable automated management of privacy in communicating with conversation systems[0013]
Regarding Claim 6, Olladapu as in Claim 5 teaches the machine-learning model is trained to use one or more of emotional cues, keywords(Similarly, the characteristic component 120 may use natural language processing to determine the conversation context based on words used by the user indicating they are engaged in a conversation which may involve personal, sensitive, or privacy information.[0020]), tone, or speaking volume to classify the conversation.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations to Claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ady(US PGPub US 20140372126) in view of Olladapu(US PGPub 20220303312) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shi(US Pat 11417337).
Regarding Claim 7, Ady in view of Olladapu teaches the machine-learning model is configured to learn.
Ady in view of Olladapu does not teach explicit or implicit feedback by the user to correct or incorrect conversation classifications by the machine-learning model(The AI-based model may be a machine learning model. The machine learning model may use supervised learning, clustering, dimensionality reduction, structured prediction, neural networking, reinforcement learning, or any other suitable machine learning methods.[Olladapu 0018]).
However, Shi teaches explicit or implicit feedback by the user to correct or incorrect conversation classifications by the machine-learning model(The user may label the detected instances as correct or incorrect. The model training engine may re-train the machine learning model based on the user feedback.[Col 4 Line 7-10]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady in view of Olladapu with the feedback of Shi because it would allow for the customization of conversational moment types[Col 3 Line 35-36].
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to Claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ady(US PGPub US 20140372126) in view of Autoapps(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLlo69Cq9Ok).
Regarding Claim 10, Ady as in Claim 8 does not teach the one or more processors are configured to, prior to performing the action based on the conversation, cause the electronic device to prompt the user to accept the action by the virtual assistant.
However, Autoapps teaches the one or more processors are configured to, prior to performing the action based on the conversation, cause the electronic device to prompt the user to accept the action by the virtual assistant(At 0:15 the device prompts the user with “You are sending a SMS to Tom with the text “Hello Tom”, are you sure?).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady with the prompt of Autoapps because it would allow the user to verify the action they requested.
Regarding Claim 18, Ady as in Claim 12 teaches performing, by the virtual assistant, the action(Perform voice-activated command 416 [Fig 4]) or the update of the personal knowledge base based on the conversation.
Ady does not teach in response to determining that the user intends to utilize the virtual assistant, prompting the user to accept an action or update of a personal knowledge base associated with the user by the virtual assistant based on the conversation.
However, Autoapps teaches in response to determining that the user intends to utilize the virtual assistant, prompting the user to accept an action(At 0:15 the device prompts the user with “You are sending a SMS to Tom with the text “Hello Tom”, are you sure?) or update of a personal knowledge base associated with the user by the virtual assistant based on the conversation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Ady with the prompt of Autoapps because it would allow the user to verify the action they requested.
Regarding Claim 19, Ady teaches determining that the user intends to utilize the virtual assistant comprises determining one or more conditions of a predefined user setting(In block 420, the always-on privacy mode utility 122 accesses privacy mode settings that dictate how the always-on privacy mode utility 122 configures the first user device 100 when in a privacy mode.[0052], Interpretation: If privacy mode settings cause “Revert to handheld mode”, then device will “disabling always-on voice commands[0053]”, else continue to 426) or a learned user preference are satisfied by the conversation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUN R SWAMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9763. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/ARJUN SWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights