DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 01/03/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 01/03/2025 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Statement (IDS) filed on 01/03/2025, 06/10/2025 have been accepted/considered in this office action and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
4. The Applicants priority to PCT/US2019/025256, filed April 1, 2019, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed e-terminal disclaimer (e-TD) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign an e-terminal disclaimer. An e-terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-18 of the instant Application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent # 12190891. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 12190891 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 12190891 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 12190891 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12190891 both outline a method, comprising processing, at a first processor of a computing device, output of a microphone, the output corresponding to a spoken utterance provided by a user to the microphone, wherein the computing device includes a second processor that is operating in a sleep mode when the spoken utterance is provided by the user; determining, at the first processor, whether the output at least partially corresponds to an invocation phrase for invoking an automated assistant that is accessible via the computing device; when the first processor determines that the output at least partially corresponds to the invocation phrase causing, by the first processor, the second processor to transition from the sleep mode into an operating mode, determining a voice characteristic characterized by the output of the microphone, determining, by the second processor and based on the voice characteristic characterized by the output, an amount of wake time for the second processor to remain in the operating mode, and causing, based on determining the amount of wake time for the second processor, the second processor to operate according to the operating mode for at least the amount of wake time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claims 1-18 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent # 11120804. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 11120804 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 11120804 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 11120804 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 11120804 both outline a method, comprising processing, at a first processor of a computing device, output of a microphone, the output corresponding to a spoken utterance provided by a user to the microphone, wherein the computing device includes a second processor that is operating in a sleep mode when the spoken utterance is provided by the user; determining, at the first processor, whether the output at least partially corresponds to an invocation phrase for invoking an automated assistant that is accessible via the computing device; when the first processor determines that the output at least partially corresponds to the invocation phrase causing, by the first processor, the second processor to transition from the sleep mode into an operating mode, determining a voice characteristic characterized by the output of the microphone, determining, by the second processor and based on the voice characteristic characterized by the output, an amount of wake time for the second processor to remain in the operating mode, and causing, based on determining the amount of wake time for the second processor, the second processor to operate according to the operating mode for at least the amount of wake time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
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 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.
6. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ganong (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0274203 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ganong teaches a method, comprising processing, at a first processor of a computing device, output of a microphone, the output corresponding to a spoken utterance provided by a user to the microphone, wherein the computing device includes a second processor that is operating in a sleep mode when the spoken utterance is provided by the user (Para 37, teaches relatively low power processors on a mobile device, such as a secondary, specialized and/or low power processor may be utilized to perform one or more initial processing stages to determine whether received acoustic input corresponds to spurious acoustic activity, or whether higher level, and typically higher power, processing is needed to conclude that the acoustic information includes a voice command. Para 33, teaches a microphone to detect said acoustic activity);
determining, at the first processor, whether the output at least partially corresponds to an invocation phrase for invoking an automated assistant that is accessible via the computing device (Para 37, further teaches that if the one or more initial processing stages cannot dispense with the acoustic input as spurious acoustic activity, the mobile device's primary processor e.g., main central processing unit or CPU may be engaged to perform one or more subsequent processing stages. Para 27, teaches that this non-spurious acoustic activity can include voice triggers);
when the first processor determines that the output at least partially corresponds to the invocation phrase causing, by the first processor, the second processor to transition from the sleep mode into an operating mode (Para 50, teaches that the voice response system may be enabled to monitor the acoustic environment both in active and low power modes, while monitoring the acoustic environment can be limited to either active or lower power modes. Whether the voice response system monitors the acoustic environment in active modes, low power modes or both can be user selectable. In this manner, a user can choose when the mobile device should operate in an "always-on" mode and can select what operating modes the mobile device should perform "always-on" functionality. Para 51, teaches that this transition from low power to active mode can also be achieved by input voice triggers);
determining a voice characteristic characterized by the output of the microphone (Para 53, teaches performing one or more voice activity detection or VAD, processing stages that evaluate whether the acoustic input has the characteristics of voice/speech or whether the acoustic input is more likely the result of non-voice acoustic activity in the environment);
determining, by the second processor and based on the voice characteristic characterized by the output, an amount of wake time for the second processor to remain in the operating mode (Para 48, teaches that when the voice response system is enabled to monitor the acoustic environment, act of receiving acoustic input may be performed continuously or periodically at a frequency that provides an appearance of continuous monitoring, even though it may not be strictly continuous. The acoustic environment may be monitored to obtain an acoustic input over a desired interval of time before processing the acoustic input, the acoustic environment may be sampled periodically to obtain the acoustic input, an event may trigger collecting and processing of acoustic input e.g., the microphone may indicate that sound of a given threshold has been detected, or any other method of monitoring the acoustic environment may be used such that acoustic input is received for further processing);
and causing, based on determining the amount of wake time for the second processor, the second processor to operate according to the operating mode for at least the amount of wake time (Para 49, teaches that the acoustic environment may continue to be monitored while received acoustic input is being evaluated e.g., may be essentially performed on a continuous, near continuous or ongoing basis while other processing is performed).
With regards to claim 4, Ganong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes one or more batteries that provide power to the first processor and that provide power to the second processor when the second processor is operating according to the operating mode (Paragraphs 28-29, teach battery operated mobile device wherein the battery is the source of power for all processors inside the mobile device).
With regards to claim 5, Ganong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of wake time is based on one or more interactions between the user and the automated assistant prior to the user providing the spoken utterance (Para 50, teaches that the voice response system may be enabled to monitor the acoustic environment both in active and low power modes, while monitoring the acoustic environment can be limited to either active or lower power modes. Whether the voice response system monitors the acoustic environment in active modes, low power modes or both can be user selectable. In this manner, a user can choose when the mobile device should operate in an "always-on" mode and can select what operating modes the mobile device should perform "always-on" functionality. Para 51, teaches that this transition from low power to active mode can also be achieved by input voice triggers).
With regards to claim 7, Ganong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first processor is a digital signal processor (DSP) (Para 72, teaches that the at least one first processing stage is performed on a secondary processor e.g., a relatively low power digital signal processor or DSP, on the mobile device).
With regards to claim 8, Ganong teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the second processor is a device system on a chip (SoC) (Para 72, further teaches that the at least one second processing stage is performed on a primary processor e.g., a main central processing unit or CPU of the mobile device. It is well known in the art that a CPU is a device system on chip).
With regards to claim 9, Ganong teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the computing device includes one or more batteries that provide power to the DSP and that provide power to the second processor when the device SoC is in the operating mode (Paragraphs 28-29, teach battery operated mobile device wherein the battery is the source of power for all processors inside the mobile device. This would inherently include the CPU and the DSP).
With regards to claims 10, 13-14 and 16-18, these are device claims for the corresponding method claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9. These two sets of claims are related as method and device of using the same, with each claimed device element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 10, 13-14 and 16-18 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9.
With regards to claim 12, Ganong teaches the portable computing device of claim 11, wherein the second processor operates a voice characteristic model when determining the voice characteristic and the alternative voice characteristic. (Para 81, teaches the use of phoneme models to determine voice characteristics and alternate voice characteristics).
Conclusion
7. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sumner (U.S. Patent # 11231904 B2), Iyer (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0253149 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights