DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to Application no.18/982,080 filed 12/16/2024, a CON of 12,190,883 and 11,763,806. All claims have been examined and are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-32, 34-35, 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,806 (16/912,119). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar limitations, where the patent claims recite narrower versions of the claimed limitations and therefore anticipate the application claims, with
Both claims allowing a system to use processing to incorporate additional words for a user for speaker recognition for authorized interaction with devices.
5. Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 31-32, 34-35, 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,883 (18/329,635). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar limitations, where the patent claims recite narrower versions of the claimed limitations and therefore anticipate the application claims, with
Both claims allowing a system to use processing to incorporate additional words for a user for speaker recognition for authorized interaction with devices.
18/982,080
21.A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving first data corresponding to processing of at least a first natural language input corresponding to at least a first user and a first word;
receiving second data representing a transformation between processing of the first natural language input corresponding to the first word and processing of a second natural language input corresponding to at least a second word; and
using the first data and the second data to configure a machine learning (ML) model to perform processing a future natural language input corresponding to the second word, wherein the processing of the future natural language input is based at least in part on the processing of the at least the first natural language input.
12,190,883
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving first data corresponding to at least a first user speaking first content;
receiving second data representing a transformation between how at least a second user is known to speak the first content and how the at least second user is known to speak second content; and
using the first data and the second data to configure a machine learning (ML) model to detect the first user speaking the second content.
11,763,806
1. A computer-implemented method performed by a first device, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving first audio representing first speech comprising at least a first wakeword;
generating first audio data corresponding to the first audio, the first audio data being associated with a first user identifier and comprising a first portion representing the at least first wakeword;
using the first audio data, generating a first speaker recognition feature vector configured to be used to perform speaker recognition processing with respect to the first user identifier;
after generating the first speaker recognition feature vector, receiving a request to perform speaker recognition processing, with respect to the first user identifier, using at least a second wakeword;
generating a first machine learned model for converting between how a first user is known to speak the at least first wakeword and how the first user is expected to speak the at least second wakeword, wherein generating the first machine learned model comprises:
using, as a first model input, a first feature vector corresponding to first speech comprising the at least first wakeword, the first feature vector being associated with a second user identifier, and using, as a first target, a second feature vector corresponding to second speech comprising the at least second wakeword,
the second feature vector being associated with the second user identifier;
using the first machine learned model, processing the first speaker recognition feature vector to generate a second speaker recognition feature vector configured to be used to perform speaker recognition processing with respect to the first user identifier and the at least second wakeword;
after generating the second speaker recognition feature vector, receiving second audio data representing third speech;
using the second speaker recognition feature vector, processing the second audio data to determine the third speech was spoken by a second user corresponding to the first user identifier; and
based on determining the third speech was spoken by the second user corresponding to the first user identifier, determining a response to the third speech using the first user identifier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN A ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights