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 .
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 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 2-21 stand rejected:
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite performing a search of a transcription of a query and its variants and providing an output of the search as search results.
These limitations comprise of processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “computer-implemented” (i.e., requiring a computer) in claim 2, and “control circuitry” (claim 12), notHing in the claim limitations preclude them from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer implemented” and “control circuitry”, any human can simply use e.g., synonyms of a word or words and/or similar sounding words in a query (at least one phrase) to expand that search query, and use them to obtain search results from various sources such as encyclopedias, archives, libraries, …etc by mapping them into an entity which is key to the search. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite only one additional element, i.e. a “control circuitry” to perform all the steps of “generate a transcription …”, “identify …”, “determine …”, “map …”, “perform …”, “generate for output …”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “control circuitry” to perform all the steps of “generating a transcription…” “identifying …” “determining …” “mapping …” “performing …” and “generating for output…” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the choice of similar sounding words (i.e., phonetically similar words) would result in obtaining phrases which are phonetically similar to the query (at least one phrase), and would still help map them to an entity determined most important in the search.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, for a user query such as Tylenol in pharmacy, an alternative would be pharmacy’s Tylenol.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, to determine whether a query word is capable of being combined to its adjacent words, requires basic knowledge of grammar in a language.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, in general a query (and consequently its variants) containing an entity, comprise more words than the entity.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the human forming the query could detect errors in transcribing the query and store them, and for e.g. something like spelling error, the human could learn a correct spelling of a misspelled word just as a “voice transcription model” gets updated.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, they amount to steps associated with a human transcribing an utterance from another person and increasing a number of possible candidates for a spoken word when a specific spoken word is recited, following which a search.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the “person” who depends on the transcription on the “human” could recite “thank you” (a politeness term) following transcription.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the “person” who depends on the transcription on the “human” could say “NO” (a negative term) if he determined an error in the transcription.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, the “person” could repeat speaking the query if he encountered a transcription error by the human, in which case the repetition will result in uttering phonetically similar terms in the repetition with respect to the original or previous query.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 (14) recite the limitation "the plurality of know phrases" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 12-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAANANEN (US 2011/0047149).
Regarding claim 2, VAANANEN does teach a computer-implemented method (Title, Abstract: e.g., Abstract S3: “A computer implemented method including at least one computer in accordance with the invention”)
Comprising:
generating a transcription of a query (Fig. 1 step “100”: “input search query”, e.g., ¶ 0071 S2: “The input can take place by typing text for example with a keyboard or other computer peripheral, by speech when preferably speech recognition” (generating a transcription of the query) “is conducted by the computer to extract the query terms”) e.g., ¶ 0010 line 3: “For example a query “Big Aple””) ;
identifying at least one phrase in the transcription (¶ 0010 line 3: “For example a query “Big Aple”” (identifying “Big Aple” (at least one phrase));
determining a plurality of variants of the at least one phrase (Step “110”: “expand search query with search term synonyms” (determining a plurality of variants of the at least one phrase; e.g. ¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” “New York City” “NYC”);
mapping the at least one phrase to at least one entity based at least in part on the plurality of variants (these “synonyms” in ¶ 0010-0015 map to “New York City” (at least one entity));
performing a search based at least in part on the at least one entity (step “120”: “retrieve search results based on the expanded query” (performing a search based on the “expanded query” (e.g., “New York city” (the at least one entity)));
and generating for output a search result of the search (step “140”: “list search results” (generating an output of search results of the search) “to the user in the order of contextual relevance”).
Regarding claim 3, VAANANEN does teach the method of claim 2, wherein:
determining the plurality of variants of the at least one phrase comprises determining a plurality of known phrases, wherein each known phrase of the plurality of known phrases is phonetically similar to the at least one phrase (¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” which correspond to a plurality of known phrases phonetically similar to “Big Aple” (the at least one phrase)); and
the mapping the at least one phrase to the at least one entity based at least in part on the plurality of variants further comprises:
comparing the at least one phrase to the plurality of known phrases (¶ 0135 S3: “The synonym expanded” (the plurality of known phrases) “translation results will then be compared” (are compared with) “in similarity to the other sentences in the text” (with the at least one phrase));
and identifying the at least one entity from a known phrase of the plurality of known phrases (“synonyms” in ¶ 0010-0015 map to “New York City” (at least one entity which is a known phrase from the plurality of known phrases is identified)).
Regarding claim 5, VAANANEN does teach the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the at least one phrase further comprises determining, for each respective word of the transcription, whether the respective word is capable of being combined with one or more adjacent words of the transcription to form a phrase (for a “query” “how to ship a box” according to ¶ 0071 column 1 last 2 lines+: “the written words” "how to" (a respective word) “and the pattern recognised words” "ship" (and at least one adjacent word) “and” "box" “are combined” (are combined) “to form the search query” (for the transcription); page 10 column 1 last line to page 10 column 2 line 2: “query is a sentence” (a phrase associated with the query) “or a paragraph that is automatically read as input” (that is a “sentence” that can be “automatically read” (i.e., each respective word in the query transcription is properly combined with its adjacent words)).
Regarding claim 6, VAANANEN does teach the method of claim 2, wherein a variant of the plurality of variants determined to correspond to the at least one phrase comprises more words than a phrase corresponding to the at least one entity (¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” “New York City” “NYC” (i.e., “large apple” (a variant of the plurality of variants corresponding to the at least one phrase) comprises two words while “NYC” (a phrase corresponding to the at least one entity) comprises only one word).
Regarding claim 12, VAANANEN does teach a system comprising: memory; and control circuitry (¶ 0045: “A memory unit in accordance with the invention comprises software capable of executing the computer implemented search method and/or operating the search arrangement described above”).
configured to:
generate a transcription of a query (Fig. 1 step “100”: “input search query”, e.g., ¶ 0071 S2: “The input can take place by typing text for example with a keyboard or other computer peripheral, by speech when preferably speech recognition” (generating a transcription of the query) “is conducted by the computer to extract the query terms”) e.g., ¶ 0010 line 3: “For example a query “Big Aple””) ;
identify at least one phrase in the transcription (¶ 0010 line 3: “For example a query “Big Aple”” (identifying “Big Aple” (at least one phrase));
determine a plurality of variants of the at least one phrase (Step “110”: “expand search query with search term synonyms” (determining a plurality of variants of the at least one phrase; e.g. ¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” “New York City” “NYC”);
map the at least one phrase to at least one entity based at least in part on the plurality of variants (these “synonyms” in ¶ 0010-0015 map to “New York City” (at least one entity));
perform a search based at least in part on the at least one entity (step “120”: “retrieve search results based on the expanded query” (performing a search based on the “expanded query” (e.g., “New York city” (the at least one entity)));
and generate for output a search result of the search (step “140”: “list search results” (generating an output of search results of the search) “to the user in the order of contextual relevance”).
Regarding claim 13, VAANANEN does teach the system of claim 12, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to
Determine the plurality of variants of the at least one phrase by determining a plurality of known phrases, wherein each known phrase of the plurality of known phrases is phonetically similar to the at least one phrase (¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” which correspond to a plurality of known phrases phonetically similar to “Big Aple” (the at least one phrase)); and
Wherein the control circuitry is further configured to map the at least one phrase to the at least one entity based at least in part on the plurality of variants by:
comparing the at least one phrase to the plurality of known phrases (¶ 0135 S3: “The synonym expanded” (the plurality of known phrases) “translation results will then be compared” (are compared with) “in similarity to the other sentences in the text” (with the at least one phrase));
and identifying the at least one entity from a known phrase of the plurality of known phrases (“synonyms” in ¶ 0010-0015 map to “New York City” (at least one entity which is a known phrase from the plurality of known phrases is identified)).
Regarding claim 15, VAANANEN does teach the system of claim 12, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to identify the at least one phrase by determining, for each respective word of the transcription, whether the respective word is capable of being combined with one or more adjacent words of the transcription to form a phrase (for a “query” “how to ship a box” (i.e., for a phrase transcription of the query) according to ¶ 0071 column 1 last 2 lines+: “the written words” "how to" (a respective word) “and the pattern recognised words” "ship" (and at least one adjacent word) “and” "box" “are combined” (are combined) “to form the search query” (for the transcription’s phrase); page 10 column 1 last line to page 10 column 2 line 2: “query is a sentence” (a phrase associated with the query) “or a paragraph that is automatically read as input” (that is a “sentence” that can be “automatically read” (i.e., each respective word in the query transcription is properly combined with its adjacent words)).
Regarding claim 16, VAANANEN does teach the system of claim 2, wherein a variant of the plurality of variants determined to correspond to the at least one phrase comprises more words than a phrase corresponding to the at least one entity (¶ 0010-0015: “For example a query “Big Aple” could be synonym expanded to” “Big Aple” “large apple” “Big Apple” “New York City” “NYC” (i.e., “large apple” (a variant of the plurality of variants corresponding to the at least one phrase) comprises two words while “NYC” (a phrase corresponding to the at least one entity) comprises only one word).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAANANEN, and further in view of Diligenti et al. (US Patent 9,110,975).
Regarding claim 4, VAANANEN do not specifically disclose the method of claim 2, wherein each respective known phrase of the plurality of known phrases comprises a different order of the same words of the at least one phrase.
Diligenti et al. do teach the method of claim 2, wherein each respective known phrase of the plurality of known phrases comprises a different order of the same words of the at least one phrase (Col. 13 lines 50+: “one or more terms in the user query are replaced with synonyms or stem forms, or the order of the one or more terms in the user query is changed” (the order of the same words in a query or the at least one phrase are changed) “by a query generalizer” (e.g., see FIG. 51 where the “user Query: Car stores” is replaced with “car store” and “stores car” (a plurality of known phrases) in which order of the same terms in the original query are changed to a different order)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “User Query” “Generaliz[ation]” of Diligenti et al. (Fig. 51) into the “query” “synonym” “expan[sion]” of VAANANEN would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and thus enable VAANANEN to obtain broader query expansions comprising synonyms with word orders not necessarily abide the order of the source query which would result in obtaining more search results.
Regarding claim 14, VAANANEN do not specifically disclose the system of claim 12, wherein each respective known phrase of the plurality of known phrases comprises a different order of the same words of the at least one phrase.
Diligenti et al. do teach the system of claim 12, wherein each respective known phrase of the plurality of known phrases comprises a different order of the same words of the at least one phrase (Col. 13 lines 50+: “one or more terms in the user query are replaced with synonyms or stem forms, or the order of the one or more terms in the user query is changed” (the order of the same words in a query or the at least one phrase are changed) “by a query generalizer” (e.g., see FIG. 51 where the “user Query: Car stores” is replaced with “car store” and “stores car” (a plurality of known phrases) in which order of the same terms in the original query are changed to a different order)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “User Query” “Generaliz[ation]” of Diligenti et al. (Fig. 51) into the “query” “synonym” “expan[sion]” of VAANANEN would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and thus enable VAANANEN to obtain broader query expansions comprising synonyms with word orders not necessarily abide the order of the source query which would result in obtaining more search results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAANANAN, and further in view of FORMHALS et al. (US 2016/0203817).
Regarding claim 7, VAANANEN does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the transcription is generated using a voice transcription model (¶ 0071 S2: “The input can take place by typing text for example with a keyboard or other computer peripheral, by speech when preferably speech recognition” (transcription generated by a voice transcription model)).
VAANANEN do not specifically disclose,
And the method further comprises:
storing an indication that the transcription is incorrect; and
refining the voice transcription model based on the indication.
FORMHALS et al. do teach:
storing an indication that the transcription is incorrect (¶ 0034 sentence 4+: “the human transcription service may simply operate to error check or validate the results of Transcription Module 247. For example, text or grammar checking could be performed in Transcription Module 207 and an error flag” (an indication that a transcription is incorrect) “could be set” (stored));
and
refining the voice transcription model based on the indication (¶ 0034 sentence 4+: “the human transcription service may simply operate to error check or validate the results of Transcription Module 247. For example, text or grammar checking could be performed in Transcription Module 247 and an error flag” “could be set” “which would send the error-tagged portion with the corresponding voice recording portion to the human transcription service” (so as to refine the transcription)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of the “Transcription Module 247” of FORMHALS et al. into the “speech recognition” of VAANANEN would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable VAANANEN to avoid having to send “the entirety” “of actual voice recording” to a “human transcription service” and only send the “error-tagged portion” for correction as disclosed in FORMHALS et al. ¶ 0034 last two sentences.
Regarding claim 17, VAANANEN does teach the system of claim 12, wherein the transcription is generated using a voice transcription model (¶ 0071 S2: “The input can take place by typing text for example with a keyboard or other computer peripheral, by speech when preferably speech recognition” (transcription generated by a voice transcription model)).
VAANANEN do not specifically disclose,
And wherein the system is further configured to:
store an indication that the transcription is incorrect; and
refining the voice transcription model based on the indication.
FORMHALS et al. do teach:
store an indication that the first transcription is incorrect (¶ 0034 sentence 4+: “the human transcription service may simply operate to error check or validate the results of Transcription Module 247. For example, text or grammar checking could be performed in Transcription Module 207 and an error flag” (an indication that a transcription is incorrect) “could be set” (stored));
and
refine the voice transcription model based on the indication (¶ 0034 sentence 4+: “the human transcription service may simply operate to error check or validate the results of Transcription Module 247. For example, text or grammar checking could be performed in Transcription Module 247 and an error flag” “could be set” “which would send the error-tagged portion with the corresponding voice recording portion to the human transcription service” (so as to refine the transcription)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of the “Transcription Module 247” of FORMHALS et al. into the “speech recognition” of VAANANEN would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable VAANANEN to avoid having to send “the entirety” “of actual voice recording” to a “human transcription service” and only send the “error-tagged portion” for correction as disclosed in FORMHALS et al. ¶ 0034 last two sentences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, and 18-21 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The dependent claims 8 and 18 at a high level concern a voice “query” dialog system interaction designed “for improving content discovery in response to a voice query” (Title), which is based on speech recognition by continually iterating the “query” for both recognition improvement as well as considering alternative terms in the “query” to aid in the “content discovery” (basically search results associated with the “query”).
Upon reception of a voice “query”, it is first “transcri[bed]”. Then it is “determined” if this “query” is associated with a “previous query” received within a “threshold amount of time” from the “query” which comprised a “term”. The next task is to determine if the “transcription” comprises a “trigger term” intended to “correct the previous query” associated with the “term”.
For example, in response to the “previous query” “Play Star wars”, initially a “context” is determined; e.g., spec. ¶ 0008 sentence 1: “The context of the first query may be identified based on a keyword” [or] “word[s]” detected in the “transcription”, e.g., “the word” “play” in a query such as “Play Star wars” “is associated with media content”. Then “candidate entities” are determined, which according to spec. ¶ 0019 last 9 lines: “may have a similar name or phonetic sound to “Star Horse” and correctly determines that the entity for which the user intended to search is” “Star Wars”. At this point the interactive system “generat[es]” “first” “search results”. The user may then utter the “query” based on “dissatisfaction with the” “first” “search” “results”, “such as a negative term (e.g., “no”), a corrective phrase (e.g., “I meant”), or any combination thereof” (spec. ¶ 0007). Such a term as “no” and/or “corrective phrase[s]” are defined as “trigger term[s]”. At this point upon detection of a “trigger term”, the system “increase[s]” “a relaxation[] rate” (spec. ¶ 0034 last 11 lines: “relaxation rate” “controls the number of variants of the particular term considered by the entity recognition module in identifying entities that match the particular term”). This is followed by again “identifying a plurality of candidate entities” followed by “a search based on the plurality of candidate entities” and “generating for output a second search result of the second search”.
Prior art of record, Behzadi et al. (US 2018/0012594) does teach a man machine dialog system in which according to ¶ 0030 last sentence: “commonly incorrect transcriptions may be associated with correctly identified follow-up queries”(improving content in response to a voice query); ¶ 0022 sentence 2: “The system 100 includes an ASRM 110 that is capable of receiving” “a voice query of the user 102” “and context data 104c” “and generating transcription 104d”; ¶ 0029 lines 1+: “In some implementations” “for a particular initial voice query, the query mappings within the table 120 may instead specify one or more terms or entities” (determining a plurality of candidate entities) “pre-associated with the” “initial voice query” (to which the first voice query refers); ¶ 0031 lines 8+: “The search results data are returned” (generating first results for the initial query) “for use” “in processing a subsequent voice query”; e.g., ¶ 0044 lines 2+: “after transmitting an initial query” “the user then transmits a subsequent voice query” (a second voice query) “may be transcribed” (also transcribed), e.g., ¶ 0030 lines 6+ “OPENING HOURS OF LOUVRE” is “follow up” (second voice query and transcription) of “initial voice query” “OPENING HOURS OF LUFRE”, where “HOURS” functions as a “trigger terms” in “OPENING HOURS OF LOUVRE”. However although several variations of the term “LOUVRE” (i.e., “LOO”, “LOUIE” (¶ 0044) and/or “LUFRE” (¶ 0030 line 7)) are considered as “commonly incorrect transcriptions” (¶ 0030 last 5 lines), in order to improve the transcriptions “relaxation rate” (“which controls the number of variants of the particular term”) are NOT “increase[ed]”.
Arakawa et al. (US 2010/0070277) ¶ 0121 sentence 2+ does teach: “when the detail level is low, the parameter setting unit 10 sets the pruning parameter so that the number of hypotheses” (relaxation rate) “is increased” (is increased) “because the reliability of the voice information is low”, where the “hypothesis” according to ¶ 0014 sentence 2 corresponds to “the candidate” “for the word string”, where the “candidate” according to ¶ 0010 last sentence corresponds to “recognition results” (interpretations for each term).
As an initial matter, Arakawa et al. is NOT a man machine “query” system, and the “increas[e]” in the “number of hypotheses” (relaxation rate) is not brought about by detection of a “trigger term” which a user uses to indicate “dissatisfaction” with transcription results attributed to processing of a “query” and/or any spoken input. It is merely something that the speech recognition system increases if it determines the recognition “reliability” “is low”. Therefore Arakawa et al. cannot map fully to all the claim elements pertaining to this requirement.
Further search did not produce any reference teaching this subject and therefore these claims became allowable. Claims 2-10 (dependent on claim 1), and 2-20 (dependent on claim 11) further limit the scope of their allowed parent claims and are thus allowable under similar rationale.
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 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 5, 1, 6, 7, 19, 15, 11, 16, 17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,507. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because :
19/026,080
8. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the search is a first search and the search result is a first search result, the method further comprising:
determining that the transcription comprises a trigger term indicating that an intent of the query is to correct a previous query; and
based at least in part on the determining that the transcription comprises the trigger term: identifying a first term of the query that is similar to a second term of the previous query;
temporarily increasing, for the first term, a relaxation rate of an entity recognition model, wherein a number of interpretations for the first term is based on the relaxation rate;
identifying a plurality of candidate entities to which the first term refers using the entity recognition model and based on the increased relaxation rate;
performing a second search based on the plurality of candidate entities and data associated with the previous voice query; and generating for output a second search result of the second search.
11,962,507
A method for improving content discovery in response to a voice query, the method comprising:
Generating a transcription of a voice query;
determining whether the transcription includes a trigger term indicating that an intent of the query is to correct a previous voice query; and
in response to determining that the transcription comprises the trigger term: identifying, based on the transcription and data associated with the previous voice query, a first term of the query that is similar to a second term of the previous voice query;
temporarily increasing, for the first term, a relaxation rate of an entity recognition model, wherein a number of interpretations considered for the first term is based on the relaxation rate;
identifying a plurality of candidate entities to which the first term refers using the entity recognition model and based on the increased relaxation rate;
performing a second search based on the plurality of candidate entities and data associated with the previous voice query; and generating for output a second search result of the second search.
“every limitation in the instant application claims 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 is taught in the conflicting application claim(s) 9, 5, 1, 6, 7, 19, 15, 11, 16, 17 respectively and therefore the instant application claim is obvious in view of the conflicting claims, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982)”.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arakawa et al. (US 2010/0070277) ¶ 0121 sentence 2+ does teach: “when the detail level is low, the parameter setting unit 10 sets the pruning parameter so that the number of hypotheses” (relaxation rate) “is increased” (is increased) “because the reliability of the voice information is low”, where the “hypothesis” according to ¶ 0014 sentence 2 corresponds to “the candidate” “for the word string”, where the “candidate” according to ¶ 0010 last sentence corresponds to “recognition results” (interpretations for each term). Arakawa et al. though is NOT a man machine “query” system, and the “increas[e]” in the “number of hypotheses” (relaxation rate) is not brought about by detection of a “trigger term” which a user uses to indicate “dissatisfaction” with transcription results attributed to processing of a “query” and/or any spoken input. It is merely something that the speech recognition system increases if it determines the recognition “reliability” “is low”. Therefore Arakawa et al. cannot map fully to all the claim elements pertaining to this requirement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZAD KAZEMINEZHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-5860. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am to 11:30 pm.
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, Paras D. Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/Farzad Kazeminezhad/
Art Unit 2653
September 2nd 2026.
Prosecution Insights