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 .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 17 January 2025 in reference to application 19/028,941. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
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, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 12,211,502 anticipate the instant claims as laid out in the chart below.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,211,502
Claim 1: An electronic device, comprising:
Claim 1: An electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more processors;
memory; and
and memory storing:
one or more programs stored in memory, the one or more programs including instructions for:
one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for
receiving a user utterance;
receiving a user utterance;
determining, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations;
generating, using one or more language models, a candidate text representation of the user utterance;
determining whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger;
Claim 8: determining whether the user utterance includes a lexical trigger,
in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger:
wherein the user gaze data is obtained in response to a determination that the user utterance does not include a lexical trigger.
obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
Claim 1: obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation.
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining a candidate intent based on the user utterance.
Claim 8: The electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including further instructions for: determining whether a task associated with the one or more candidate intents can be performed
Claim 4: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: determining whether a task associated with the candidate intent can be performed.
Claim 10: The electronic device of claim 8, the one or more programs including further instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the task associated with the one or more candidate intents can be performed:
Claim 5: The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the task associated with the candidate intent can be performed:
performing the task; and
performing the task; and
providing an output indicative of the task.
providing an output indicative of the task.
Claim 11: The electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including further instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant is below a threshold, disregarding the user utterance.
Claim 3: The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant is below a threshold, disregarding the user utterance.
Claim 13: A method comprising:
Claim 9: A method for providing natural language interaction by a virtual assistant, the method comprising:
at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory:
at an electronic device with one or more processors, memory,
receiving a user utterance;
at an electronic device with one or more processors, memory,
determining, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations;
generating, using one or more language models, a candidate text representation of the user utterance;
determining whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger;
Claim 16: determining whether the user utterance includes a lexical trigger,
in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger:
wherein the user gaze data is obtained in response to a determination that the user utterance does not include a lexical trigger.
obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
Claim 9: obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation.
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining a candidate intent based on the user utterance.
Claim 14: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:
Claim 17: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions for:
receive a user utterance;
receiving a user utterance;
determine, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations;
generating, using one or more language models, a candidate text representation of the user utterance;
determine whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger;
Claim 24: determining whether the user utterance includes a lexical trigger,
in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger:
wherein the user gaze data is obtained in response to a determination that the user utterance does not include a lexical trigger.
obtain user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
determine, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
Claim 17: determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determine whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determine one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation.
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining a candidate intent based on the user utterance.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,502 in view of Meyers et al. (US Patent 9,619,378).
Consider claim 7, 12,211,502 claims the electronic device of claim 1, but does not specifically claim the one or more programs including further instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation includes the lexical trigger, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation.
In the same field of waking digital assistants, Meyers teaches in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation includes the lexical trigger, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation (col 4 lines 47-65, col 6, processing to determine meanings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to allow the user to activate a device with a lexical trigger as taught by Meyers in the system of 12, 211,502 in order to allow a user to activate a device when gazing at the device may not be possible.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 14 recite(s) receiving a user utterance; determining, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations; determining whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger; in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger: obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device; determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant; determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation..
The limitation of receiving a user utterance, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processors, memory, and computer readable media, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to the user.
The limitation of determining, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person writing out different candidate text representations.
The limitation of determining whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person deciding whether they heard a lexical trigger.
The limitation obtaining gaze data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at the user to see where they are looking if they heard no lexical trigger.
The limitation determining a likelihood that the utterance is directed to an assistant based on gaze data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person quantifying the probability that the user is speaking to the assistant, i.e. from 1-10.
The limitation determining if the likelihood exceeds a threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining if the quantified probability that the user is speaking to the assistant is larger than a number, i.e. greater than 6.
The limitation determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processors, microphone, memory, and computer readable media, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining what action should be taken based on the user speech.
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 only additionally recite processors, memory, and computer readable media. These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 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 computer components amount 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.
Claim 2 additionally recites in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger: obtaining context information; and determining based on the user gaze data and the context information, a likelihood that the utterance is directed to a virtual assistant. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by deciding no trigger was heard, read context information, and think whether the utterance was directed to the assistant based on the gaze and context data. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 additionally recites the context information includes a usage pattern of the virtual assistant. However this added limitation does not prevent the recited step from being performed as a mental process because the person could read usage pattern data. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 additionally recites the context information includes a time associated with the electronic device. However this added limitation does not prevent the recited step from being performed as a mental process because the person could read the time. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 additionally recites the context information includes a location associated with the electronic device. However this added limitation does not prevent the recited step from being performed as a mental process because the person could determine a location. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 additionally recites the sensor is a first sensor and the context information is obtained from a second sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device. However these sensors are generic sensors performing generic data gathering tasks. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 additionally recites in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation includes the lexical trigger, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by upon hearing a lexical trigger, determine candidate intents. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 additionally recites determining whether a task associated with the one or more candidate intents can be performed.. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by deciding if a task can be performed. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 additionally recites obtaining context information; and determining whether the task associated with the one or more candidate intents can be performed using the context information.. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by reading context information, and deciding a task can be performed based on the context data. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 additionally recites in accordance with a determination that the task associated with the one or more candidate intents can be performed: performing the task; and providing an output indicative of the task.. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by deciding a task can be performed, performing a task such as a math problem, and speaking the result. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 additionally recites in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant is below a threshold, disregarding the user utterance.. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by deciding the likelihood is below a threshold and ignoring what was said. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 additionally recites performing the same steps recited in claim 1 based on a second candidate representation. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by essentially performing the steps as explained for claim 1. Similar to above, no additional limitations are recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and a terminal disclaimer filed to overcome double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Consider claim 1, the closest prior art of record White et al. (US PAP 2019/0187787) teaches an electronic device (figures 9B), comprising:
one or more processors (figure 9b processor 960);
memory (figure 9b, memory 962); and
one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving a user utterance (0039, verbal input);
determining, based on the user utterance, one or more candidate text representations (0039, natural language processing to determine meaning);
obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device (0036, determining eye gaze data);
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant (0038, determining if user is trying to interact with system, 0038-42, determining a confidence level);
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold (0042, thresholds); and
n accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation (0044-45, determining a response).
However the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “determining whether a first candidate text representation of the one or more candidate text representations includes a lexical trigger;
in accordance with a determination that the first candidate text representation does not include the lexical trigger:
obtaining user gaze data from a sensor communicatively coupled to the electronic device;
determining, based on the user gaze data, a likelihood that the user utterance is directed to a virtual assistant;
determining whether the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold; and
in accordance with a determination that the likelihood that the user utterance is directed to the virtual assistant exceeds a threshold, determining one or more candidate intents based on the first candidate text representation” when combined with each and every other limitation of the claim. Rather, in White gaze determination for the purpose of activation of a digital agent is performed independently of the presence of a keyword. Therefore claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-12 depend on and further limit claim 1 and therefore contain allowable subject matter as well.
Claims 13 and 14 contain similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore contain allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights