DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 – 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 5, 7 – 43 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 - 14 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of the claims of the cited US patent.
It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1 – 5, 7 – 43 of the '220' Patent as a general teaching for using multi-step prompt workflows to generate and refine output, to perform method as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the '220' Patent and differ only in the method steps. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of '220' Patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application. And since the structure is as recited, the method step is obtained and therefore, obvious.
Here is a comparison between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited patent (11,043,220).
Instant Application 19/022,996
Patent 11,043,220
Comparison
1.A first electronic device, comprising:
1.A first electronic device, comprising:
Same
one or more processors; memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more programs include instructions for:
one or more processors; memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more programs include instructions for:
Same
while the first electronic device is participating in a context-sharing group associated with a first location, wherein the context-sharing group is a collection of a plurality of electronic devices that each share context information with at least one other electronic device included in the collection, and wherein the collection includes a context collector:
while the first electronic device is participating in a context-sharing group associated with a first location, wherein the context-sharing group is a collection of at least two electronic devices that each share context information with at least one other electronic device included in the collection, and wherein the collection includes at least a second electronic device and a context collector:
Same
receiving a user voice input;
receiving a user voice input;
Same
receiving, from the context collector, an aggregate context of the context- sharing group;
receiving, from the context collector, an aggregate context of the context- sharing group, wherein prior to receiving the aggregate context, at least the first electronic device and the second electronic device provide context information included in the aggregate context to the context collector and wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device each provide their respective context information to the context collector in response to undergoing a device state change;
Similar
after receiving the aggregate context, providing at least a portion of the aggregate context and data corresponding to the user voice input to a remote device that is not participating in the context-sharing group, wherein the remote device determines a plurality of tasks based on the data corresponding to the user voice input;
after receiving the aggregate context, providing at least a portion of the aggregate context and data corresponding to the user voice input to a remote device that is not participating in the context-sharing group;
Similar
receiving, from the remote device: a first command to perform a first set of tasks of the plurality of tasks and a second command to perform a second set of tasks of the plurality of tasks; and a first device identifier corresponding to a second electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices and a second device identifier corresponding to a third electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices;
receiving, from the remote device, a command to perform one or more tasks and a device identifier corresponding to the second electronic device, wherein the remote device determines the one or more tasks and the device identifier based on the data corresponding to the user voice input and context information included in the at least a portion of the aggregate context; and
Similar
transmitting the first command to the second electronic device based on the first device identifier, wherein the first command causes the second electronic device to perform the first set of tasks; and transmitting the second command to the third electronic device based on the second device identifier, wherein the second command causes the third electronic device to perform the second set of tasks.
transmitting the command to the second electronic device based on the device identifier, wherein the command causes the second electronic device to perform the one or more tasks.
Similar
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)(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 – 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Koll et al. (US PAP 2016/0336011).
As per claims 1, 13, 14, Koll et al. teach a first electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more programs include instructions (paragraph 7) for:
while the first electronic device is participating in a context-sharing group associated with a first location, wherein the context-sharing group is a collection of a plurality of electronic devices that each share context information with at least one other electronic device included in the collection, and wherein the collection includes a context collector ("the shared context of the audio capture component and result processing component may be used to enable the two components to communicate with each other by sending control and/or data signals to each other."; paragraphs 6, 9, and 34):
receiving a user voice input; receiving, from the context collector, an aggregate context of the context- sharing group ("a context sharing component comprising: means for determining that the result processing component is associated with a current context of the user; wherein the result processing component comprises means for processing the speech recognition results to produce result output"; paragraph 6);
after receiving the aggregate context, providing at least a portion of the aggregate context and data corresponding to the user voice input to a remote device that is not participating in the context-sharing group, wherein the remote device determines a plurality of tasks based on the data corresponding to the user voice input ("the context sharing component 250 identifies the result processing component 220 as the result processing component currently associated with the user 202. In response to such an identification, the speech recognition results 218 are provided (e.g., transmitted over a network) to the result processing component 220 (FIG. 3, operation 314)."; paragraphs 23, 43, 46);
receiving, from the remote device: a first command to perform a first set of tasks of the plurality of tasks and a second command to perform a second set of tasks of the plurality of tasks; and a first device identifier corresponding to a second electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices and a second device identifier corresponding to a third electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices ("if the results 218 include one or more commands, then the application 240 may process the results 218 by executing the commands to perform functions such as closing windows, opening files, or executing software."; paragraphs 23, 43, 46); and
transmitting the first command to the second electronic device based on the first device identifier, wherein the first command causes the second electronic device to perform the first set of tasks; and transmitting the second command to the third electronic device based on the second device identifier, wherein the second command causes the third electronic device to perform the second set of tasks ("result processing component which are distributed among two or more logical devices and/or two or more physical devices…a second device including a result processing component; and a context sharing component comprising: means for determining that the result processing component is associated with a current context of the user; wherein the result processing component comprises means for processing the speech recognition results to produce result output."; paragraphs 4-7, 46).
As per claim 2, Koll et al., further disclose that one or more tasks of the first set of tasks are identical to one or more tasks of the second set of tasks (“the audio capture component may be on the same logical device and/or physical device as the result processing component, but the effects of applying the speech recognition results may be output (e.g., displayed) to the user through a different logical device and/or physical device, such as a computer connected to a terminal server…components described herein may be further divided into additional components or joined together to form fewer components for performing the same functions.”; paragraphs 4 – 7, 89).
As per claim 3, Koll et al., further disclose the at least a portion of the aggregate context includes context information associated with the second electronic device and context information associated with the third electronic device, the remote device determines the first set of tasks based on device capability information included the context information associated with the second electronic device, and the remote device determines the second set of tasks based on device capability information included the context information associated with the third electronic device ("a first device including an audio capture component, the audio capture component comprising means for capturing an audio signal representing speech of a user to produce a captured audio signal; a speech recognition processing component comprising means for performing automatic speech recognition on the captured audio signal to produce speech recognition results; a second device including a result processing component; and a context sharing component comprising: means for determining that the result processing component is associated with a current context of the user"; Koll et al., paragraphs 5 - 7, 35).
As per claim 4, Koll et al., further disclose the remote device determines the first set of tasks and the second set of tasks in response to determining, based on the context information associated with the second electronic device and the context information associated with the third electronic device, that the second electronic device and the third electronic device are both available, capable of performing at least one task of the plurality of tasks, and proximate to the first electronic device ("The context sharing component 250, therefore, is an example of a means for dynamically coupling
at least two speech recognition components to each other. "Dynamically coupling" a first component to a second component refers to a process in which: (1) at a first time, the first component and the second component are not both associated with a user; (2) a state change occurs, as a result of which, at a second time, both the first component and the second component are associated with the user"; Koll et al., paragraphs 84 - 87).
As per claim 5, Koll et al., further disclose the second electronic device only outputs an audio output based on the performance of the first set of tasks, and wherein the third electronic device only displays a visual output based on the performance of the second set of tasks (“the effects of applying the speech recognition results may be output (e.g., displayed) to the user through a different logical device and/or physical device, such as a computer connected to a terminal server.”; paragraphs 5, 22, 23).
As per claim 6, Koll et al., further disclose in response to performing the first set of tasks, the second electronic device outputs a brief summary of data or information retrieved based on the performance of the first set of tasks (“if the speech recognition results 118 are a sentence of text, the result processing component 120 may cause the word processor to insert such text into an open document at the current text cursor location. The output device 124 may then display the updated document as the user output 126.”; paragraphs 21 – 23, 46 - 51).
As per claim 7, Koll et al., further disclose in response to performing the second set of tasks, the third electronic device outputs a detailed summary of data or information retrieved based on the performance of the second set of tasks, wherein the detailed summary includes at least one of hyperlinks, images, media items, or text data that is not included in the brief summary (“if the speech recognition results 118 are a sentence of text, the result processing component 120 may cause the word processor to insert such text into an open document at the current text cursor location. The output device 124 may then display the updated document as the user output 126.”; paragraphs 21 – 23, 46 - 51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and filing a terminal disclaimer over patent 11,043,220. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 8 – 12, the prior art made of record does not teach or suggest receiving a second user voice input representing a user request to make a purchase; receiving, from the context collector, an updated aggregate context, wherein the updated aggregate context includes updated context information associated with the second electronic device and updated context information associated with the third electronic device; transmitting, to the remote device, data corresponding to the second user voice input and at least a portion of the updated aggregate context, wherein the remote device determines a second plurality of tasks based on the data corresponding to the second user voice input.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et a. teach METHOD FOR PROVIDING GROUP CONTEXT SENSING AND INFERENCE. Lee et al. teach ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PROCESSING USER UTTERANCE. Vibbert et al. teach Dialog Flow Management In Hierarchical Task Dialogs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights