DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025, 02/13/2025, 06/05/2025, 11/12/2025, 12/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of:
Receiving information (speech input),
Analyzing information (determining intent based on content form another device),
Producing output based on that analysis.
This is classic information processing/mental process territory. Courts have repeatedly held that:
Interpreting user input,
Determining intent,
Responding based on intent
are abstract ideas (e.g., Electric Power Group, Apple v. Ameranth, In re Killian).
The use of generic computer components (“one or more processors,” “memory,” “electronic device”) does not remove the abstraction.
The claim:
Uses generic computer components,
Performs routine, conventional functions (receive input, analyze data, output result),
Does not specify how the intent is determined in a technical novel way,
Does not improve the functioning of the computer itself,
Does not recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem,
Based on content from a second electronic device is insufficient-It merely adds another data source, not a technical innovation.
The claim is therefore not statutory under USC. 35. 101.
Similar rational applies to independent claims 19 and 20.
Each of claims 2-18 is directed towards the same abstract idea as claim 1. Most of the claims recite additional limitations that further detail claim 1. Even though, the limitations add a degree of particularity to the claimed invention, they do not change the underlying abstract idea of receiving information analyzing information and producing an output based on analysis (information processing). The additional elements of the dependent considered alone or in combination do not transform the character of the claim as a whole nor recite anything beyond routine computer functions necessary to perform the abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li, US Pat. 9,286,910.
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20 Li discloses an electronic device (fig. 1, 110), comprising:
one or more processors (col. 6, ll. 1-19 (fig. 7 (includes processor for executing instructions stored in memory));
a memory (fig. 2, 208 (memory));
and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (col. 6, ll. 1-19 (processor for executing instructions stored in memory)) for:
receiving, at the electronic device, a speech input from a user (col. 2, ll. 36-39 (queries received at mobile device may be typed in or spoken utterances));
determining an intent of the speech input based on content from a second electronic device (col. 3, ll. 40-51; col. 4, ll. 37-41 (intent or context can be determined from other neighborhood devices on the same network as the user device 110-for example, context can be determined from a current content being provided to the user 10 on a television device 136-the television device is a second device-the context information is used to resolve the meaning of the ambiguous words)); and
providing, based on the intent, an output at the electronic device (col. 5, ll. 32-34 (result is output to the user mobile device 110)).
Regarding claim 2, Sharifi discloses the electronic device, wherein the output at the electronic device includes at least one of an audible output and a displayed output (col. 5, ll. 32-34 (displaying the result meets displayed output)).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on content displayed on a display of the electronic device (col. 3, ll. 40-47 (context can be determined based on content provided on media device itself-context leads to determination of intent-see col. 4, ll. 37-41)).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the electronic device, wherein the content from the second electronic device includes content displayed on a display of the second electronic device (col. 4, ll. 37-41 (television device is second device)).
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.
Claims 3-5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Lloyd US Pat. 8,521,526.
Regarding claim 3, Li does not explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on one or more previous user queries.
Lloyd discloses the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on one or more previous user queries (col. 12, ll. 11-56; Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on one or more previous user queries as disclosed by Lloyd in order to efficiently identify user intent based on the frequency on which user previous search words.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Lloyd discloses the electronic device, wherein the one or more previous user queries includes a previous query received in a previous speech input (col. 12, ll. 11-56 (see Abstract for speech input)).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Lloyd discloses the electronic device, wherein the one or more previous user queries includes a previous query received via one or more previous touch inputs (col. 12, ll. 11-56; col. 27, ll. 8-10 (tactile input meets touch input)).
Regarding claim 16, Li does not explicitly disclose the electronic device, comprising: obtaining an identification of the user, wherein determining an intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on information associated with the identification of the user.
Lloyd discloses the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on one or more previous user queries (col. 12, ll. 11-56 (user search history is used to determine intent)) previous queries associated with a particular (identified user) used to determine intent is “an intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on information associated with the identification of the user.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include the electronic device, wherein determining the intent of the speech input includes determining the intent based on one or more previous user queries as disclosed by Lloyd in order to efficiently identify user intent based on the frequency on which user previous search words.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Istvan, USPG_Pub. 20060075429.
Regarding claim 8, Li does not explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from the second electronic device.
Istvan discloses receiving voice command at a remote-control device which is sent to a set top box (STB) or DVR to perform a function including playing back a content switching to a channel etc. (fig. 1; Para. 17) which meets “the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from the second electronic device.” The STB/DVR is receiving speech input from the remote-control device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from the second electronic device as disclosed by Istvan in order to support enhanced interaction with the STB/DVR by supporting manual and speech/voice controls.
Regarding claim 9, Li does not explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from a third electronic device.
Istvan discloses receiving speech input from a head mount microphone into the remote-control vis USB which then is received by the STB/DVR to perform an operation/function (Para. 17) which meets “the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from a third electronic device.” The head mount microphone is the third device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include the electronic device, wherein receiving a speech input from a user includes receiving the speech input at the electronic device from a third electronic device as disclosed by Istvan in order to support enhanced interaction with the STB/DVR by supporting manual and speech/voice controls.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Wheatley, USPG_Pub. 20150163558.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses in part the electronic device, wherein providing, based on the intent, an output at the electronic device comprises: in accordance with a determination that the intent includes a request to play media content, displaying media content on a display of the electronic device (col. 4, ll. 37-41; col. 3, ll. 40-47 (content provided on device itself can be used to determine context which leads to intent)).
However, Li does not explicitly disclose that intent can include a content playback request.
Wheatley discloses content playback request that can be interpreted for intent based data in an expected playback adjustment database (fig. 6, 600; Para. 88) which meets “intent can include a content playback request.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include intent that includes a content playback request as disclosed by Wheatley in order to automatic media tagging to make dynamic playback adjustments.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Woods, USPG_Pub. 20130170813.
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses displaying content based in intent on user device (col. 3, ll. 40-51; col. 4, ll. 37-4 (see claim 1 rejection)). However, Li does not explicitly disclose determining a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device; and in accordance with the distance satisfying a first criteria, providing, the output at the electronic device.
Woods discloses determining a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device (Para. 59 (the higher the signal strength the closer the distance)); and in accordance with the distance satisfying a first criteria, providing, the output at the electronic device (Para. 59 (the vicinity is the broader threshold within which devices are detected-Para. 123-124)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include determining a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device; and in accordance with the distance satisfying a first criteria, providing, the output at the electronic device as disclosed by Woods
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Woods discloses the electronic device, wherein the first criteria includes a condition that the electronic device is a nearest device, among multiple devices, to the second electronic device (Woods: Para. 59 (highest signal strength will be the nearest distance)).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Kumar, US Pat. 8,299,889.
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses the electronic device, comprising: in response to receiving the speech input from the user, determining the intent of the speech input based on content from the second electronic device (see claim 1 rejection)).
Li dose not explicitly disclose performing an authentication procedure; and in accordance with a determination that the user is authenticated based on the authentication procedure.
Kumar discloses performing an authentication procedure (col. 4, ll. 24-31); and in accordance with a determination that the user is authenticated based on the authentication procedure display content on user device (col. 3, ll. 35-46 (voice analysis to perform user authentication)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include performing an authentication procedure and in accordance with a determination that the user is authenticated based on the authentication procedure display content on user device as disclosed by Kumar in order to support presence-based content authorization based on present identified user.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Kumar discloses the electronic device, wherein the authentication procedure includes analyzing the speech input using voice recognition to identify a speaker (Kumar: col. 3, ll. 35-46 (voice analysis to perform user authentication)).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Kumar discloses the electronic device, wherein the authentication procedure includes one or more of a device pairing, a device registration (Kumar: fig. 5; col. 8, ll. 59-66 (device registration)), a trust determination, a passcode (Kumar: col. 5, ll. 48-57 (PIN and Password)), and a security question (Kumar: col. 5, ll. 48-57 (PIN and Password)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Lloyd US Pat. 8,521,526, and further in view of Kumar, US Pat. 8,299,889.
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Lloyd do not explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein the information associated with the identification of the user includes at least one of media content owned by the user, stored media content, user preferences, and user settings.
Kumar discloses the electronic device, wherein the information associated with the identification of the user includes at least one of media content owned by the user, stored media content, user preferences, and user settings (Kumar col. 5, ll. 48-57 (user profile or settings meets at least one of….)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li in view of Lloyd to include the electronic device, wherein the information associated with the identification of the user includes at least one of media content owned by the user, stored media content, user preferences, and user settings as disclosed by Kumar in order to support presence-based content authorization based on present identified user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pat. 9,286,910, in view of Wheatley, USPG_Pub. 20150163558, and further in view of Kumar, US Pat. 8,299,889.
Regarding claim 18, Li does not explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein the intent of the speech input corresponds to playing media content, comprising: in accordance with a determination that the user is authorized to access the media content, providing the media content at the electronic device; and in accordance with a determination that the user is not authorized to access the media content, forgoing providing the media content at the electronic device.
Wheatley discloses the electronic device, wherein the intent of the speech input corresponds to playing media content (Para. 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li to include intent that includes a content playback request as disclosed by Wheatley in order to automatic media tagging to make dynamic playback adjustments.
Li in view of Wheatley do not explicitly disclose in accordance with a determination that the user is authorized to access the media content, providing the media content at the electronic device; and in accordance with a determination that the user is not authorized to access the media content, forgoing providing the media content at the electronic device.
Kumar discloses in accordance with a determination that the user is authorized to access the media content, providing the media content at the electronic device; and in accordance with a determination that the user is not authorized to access the media content, forgoing providing the media content at the electronic device (col. 5, ll. 48-57; Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li in view of Wheatley to include in accordance with a determination that the user is authorized to access the media content, providing the media content at the electronic device; and in accordance with a determination that the user is not authorized to access the media content, forgoing providing the media content at the electronic device as disclosed by Kumar in order to support presence-based content authorization based on present identified user.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-48 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are a broader variation of the 297’ patent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2422