CTNF 19/011,243 CTNF 82155 DETAILED ACTION This is responsive to the application filed 06 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In lines 9-11, claim 1 recites “analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of users with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of users issuing queries to the query processing system”. However, the original specification of the parent application (patent number 11/117,621) at most discloses analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of a user with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of the user’s issuing queries to the query processing system. In other words there is no disclosure of historical engagement and past instances of multiple users as claimed. Independent claims 9 and 17 suffer from similar deficiencies and are likewise rejected. The remaining claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In line 10, claim 1 recites the limitation “the user’s voice”. It is unclear if this limitation refers back to the user of line 2 or one of the users of line 7. In order to overcome this issue and according to the specification, the limitation “analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of users with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of users issuing queries to the query processing system” will be interpreted as ‘analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of the user users with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of the user users issuing queries to the query processing system’. Independent claims 9 and 17 suffer from similar deficiencies and are likewise rejected. The remaining claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy. Double Patenting 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-31 AIA Claim 1 (as interpreted) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,676,582 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 9 and 17 (as interpreted) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,582 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : current claim 9 and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,582 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method steps (see table below); and current claim 17 and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,582 are related as method and computer medium comprising instructions for performing the method, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method steps (see table below). Current claims claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,582 9. A system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive first audio data of a first utterance spoken by a user; obtain a first transcription of the first utterance; determine whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription, and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of users with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of users issuing queries to the query processing system; based on determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to the query processing system, configure a data routing component to: provide the first transcription of the first utterance to the query processing system as a first query; or bypass routing the first transcription so that the first transcription is not provided to the query processing system. 17. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive first audio data of a first utterance spoken by a user; obtain a first transcription of the first utterance; determine whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription, and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of users with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of users issuing queries to the query processing system; based on determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to the query processing system, configure a data routing component to: provide the first transcription of the first utterance to the query processing system as a first query; or bypass routing the first transcription so that the first transcription is not provided to the query processing system. 10. A method implemented using one or more processors, comprising: receiving first audio data of a first utterance spoken by a user; obtaining a first transcription of the first utterance; determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription, and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of the user with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of the user issuing queries to the query processing system; based on determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to the query processing system, configuring a data routing component to: provide the first transcription of the first utterance to the query processing system as a first query; or bypass routing the first transcription so that the first transcription is not provided to the query processing system. 10. A method implemented using one or more processors, comprising: receiving first audio data of a first utterance spoken by a user; obtaining a first transcription of the first utterance; determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription, and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of the user with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of the user issuing queries to the query processing system; based on determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to the query processing system, configuring a data routing component to: provide the first transcription of the first utterance to the query processing system as a first query; or bypass routing the first transcription so that the first transcription is not provided to the query processing system. Implementing/performing a computer performed method on a system or as software on a computer readable medium would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, in order to facilitate storing and loading the software onto the computer system . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art of record, Piernot (US 2015/0348548) discloses a method implemented using one or more processors ([0020]), comprising: receiving first audio data of a first utterance spoken by a user (“ an initial spoken user input can be identified from the audio input ”, [0048]); obtaining a first transcription of the first utterance (“ At block 312 , a response to the spoken user input can be generated by the user device and/or a remote server. In some examples, generating a response to the spoken user input can include one or more of performing speech-to-text conversion ”, [0043]); determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system (“ it can be determined, based on contextual information associated with the identified spoken user input, whether the virtual assistant should respond to the user's question ”, [0052]) based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription (“ a semantic similarity analysis can be performed on the current spoken user input ”, [0063]), and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of the user ( previous user input ) with the query processing system (“ the contextual information can include time data from a clock or timer of user device 102. The time data can represent a length of time between any desired two or more events. For example, the time data can represent a length of time between the spoken user input being received and a time that a previous user input, such as a button press, mouse click, screen touch, previous spoken user input, or the like, was received ”, [0057], see also “ the contextual information can include conversation history data ”, [0060], see [0039] for combining different contextual information); based on determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to the query processing system, configuring a data routing component to: provide the first transcription of the first utterance to the query processing system as a first query; or bypass routing the first transcription so that the first transcription is not provided to the query processing system(“ At block 308 , it can be determined, based on contextual information associated with the identified spoken user input, whether the virtual assistant should respond to the user's question. In this example, it can be determined (using either the rule-based or probabilistic system) that the virtual assistant should respond to the user's question because the contextual information indicates that the user asked the second question within a threshold length of time from receiving an answer to the first question, suggesting that the second question was part of the same conversation. Thus, the process can proceed to block 310 and 312 , where a response to the user's question can be generated ”, [0052] see also “ At block 310 , if it was determined at block 308 that the virtual assistant should not respond to the spoken user input because the spoken user input was not intended for the virtual assistant, the process can return to block 304 to monitor the audio input for a spoken user input ”, [0042]). Piernot, alone or in combination with the prior art of record, does not disclose determining whether the first utterance includes a query directed to a query processing system based on: semantic analysis of the first transcription, and analysis of one or more cues derived from historical engagement of the user with the query processing system, wherein the one or more cues are derived from patterns of intonation or inflection of the user's voice that are observed during past instances of the user issuing queries to the query processing system Kim et al. (US 2020/0051554) discloses various embodiments of the disclosure disclose a method and apparatus for processing a voice recognition service in an electronic device. According to various embodiments of the disclosure, an electronic device may include a microphone, a memory, and a processor operatively coupled to the microphone and the memory. The processor may be configured to wake-up on the basis of detection of a wake-up word, process a first task corresponding to a first voice command of a user on the basis of the wake-up, set a wait time during which a follow-up command can be received on the basis of the processing of the first task, detect a second voice command of the user during the wait time, analyze a conversational context on the basis of the first voice command and second voice command, and process a second task on the basis of a result of the analysis. Various embodiments are possible. Mok et al. (US 10,847,149) discloses various embodiments of the disclosure disclose a method and apparatus for processing a voice recognition service in an electronic device. According to various embodiments of the disclosure, an electronic device may include a microphone, a memory, and a processor operatively coupled to the microphone and the memory. The processor may be configured to wake-up on the basis of detection of a wake-up word, process a first task corresponding to a first voice command of a user on the basis of the wake-up, set a wait time during which a follow-up command can be received on the basis of the processing of the first task, detect a second voice command of the user during the wait time, analyze a conversational context on the basis of the first voice command and second voice command, and process a second task on the basis of a result of the analysis. Various embodiments are possible. Lu (US 2018/0285068) provides a processing method of audio control and an electronic device implementing the processing method. The method for audio control for an electronic device includes receiving, using a processor, a first audio input; activating, using a processor, an audio controlled function of an electronic device in response to the first audio input; receiving, using a processor, a second audio input; determining, using a processor, whether the second audio input is an audio control for the electronic device; and responding, using a processor, to the second audio input in response to a determination result. Boss et al. (US 2019/0279624) discloses a method for detecting voice commands. Audio is recorded by the computer system to form a recorded audio. The computer system then determines whether a voice command spoken by a first person is present in the recorded audio. If the voice command is present in the recorded audio, the computer system determines whether the voice command is directed to a second person by the first person. If the voice command is not being directed to the second person, the computer system processes the voice command, wherein processing of the voice command occurs without a wake word. Johnson, III et al. (US 2020/0186482) discloses a method for matching user tone to digital assistant response types and tones while assisting with meeting scheduling are presented. An electronic message may be received by a digital assistant service. The digital assistant service may detect an intent to schedule a meeting and identify an urgency level associated with the message. The digital assistant may respond to the scheduling user with a message having a tone corresponding to the identified urgency level. The digital assistant may also perform a follow-up action for scheduling the meeting in a manner consistent with the urgency level of the scheduling user. For example, the digital assistant may attempt to schedule the meeting in a higher priority manner if there is a high urgency associated with the message, and a lower priority manner if there is a low urgency associated with the message. Fan et al. (US 2020/0194007) discloses a method which includes receiving a wake-up prompt, activating an interactive mode according to the wake-up prompt, displaying a dialog prompt identification in the interactive mode, obtaining a vocal request, wherein the vocal request is input in response to the dialog prompt identification, and displaying a requested content according to the vocal request. In a variety of interaction scenarios, such as in a scenario of interacting with a smart home appliance, a user can continuously provide vocal requests in an interactive mode, without waking up the interactive mode repeatedly, thereby improving user experience. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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. /SAMUEL G NEWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 2 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 3 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 4 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 5 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 6 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 7 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 8 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 9 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 10 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 11 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 12 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 13 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 14 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 15 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 16 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 17 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 18 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 19 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 19/011,243 Page 20 Art Unit: 2657
Prosecution Insights