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 19/029,358. Claims 1-20 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 10-12, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 12,205 578 anticipate the instant claims as laid out in the chart below.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,205,578
Claim 10: A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent non- transient storage of assistant interaction data until one or more termination conditions are satisfied;
determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent non-transient storage of assistant interaction data until one or more termination conditions are satisfied
while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied:
while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied:
processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device;
processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device;
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance;
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance;
causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device; and
causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device; and
responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data, preventing non-transient storage of the audio data, the recognized text, and/or the assistant response; and
responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data, preventing non-transient storage of the audio data, the recognized text, and/or the assistant response; and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied:
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied:
enabling non-transient storage of assistant interaction data.
enabling non-transient storage of assistant interaction data.
Claim 11: The method of claim 10, wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises:
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises:
causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data.
causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data, and
Claim 12: The method of claim 11, wherein the particular synthesized voice is utilized, at least for the user, only when non-transient storage of assistant interaction data is being prevented.
Claim 11: wherein the particular synthesized voice is utilized, at least for the user, only when non-transient storage of assistant interaction data is being prevented.
Claim 17: The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time.
Claim 18: The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input.
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-7 recites the limitation "responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data" of “while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Rather claim 1 refers to “prevent[ing] utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses until one or more termination conditions are satisfied.” For purposes of examination, the preventing referred to in claims 2-7 will be considered to be the preventing described in claim 1.
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, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recites determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses until one or more termination conditions are satisfied; prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device; determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance, wherein determining the assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance comprises, in response to determining to additionally prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses, determining the assistant response independent of any personal data; and causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device; and responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: enabling determining of assistant responses utilizing personal data.
The limitation of determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses until one or more termination conditions are satisfied, 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 by one or more processors, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to an input and deciding if personal data should be considered when generating responses.
The limitation of prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device, 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 the processor, the speech recognition model, and microphones, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person listening to speech and writing out what was said. Examiner notes that the speech recognition model is a generic model and can thus be considered a generic computer component, as the same is true for the microphone.
The limitation of determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance, wherein determining the assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance comprises, in response to determining to additionally prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses, determining the assistant response independent of any personal 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. For example, but for computer components, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person thinking of a response to the user speech while ignoring any personal data.
The limitation of causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device, 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, “causing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person speaking a result.
The limitation of responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: enabling determining of assistant responses utilizing personal 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. For example, but for computer components, “enabling” in the context of this claim encompasses the person hearing a command to use personal data and deciding to use it on future requests.
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 a processor, a speech recognition module, and a microphone. 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 7 additionally recites causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue; and responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue. Similar to above these steps encompass a mental process as the person could perform the steps by waving their hands or some other visual cue. 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 the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time. However this added limitation does not prevent the recited step from being performed as a mental process because the person could decide to user personal data after an amount of 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 9 additionally recites the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input. However this added limitation does not prevent the recited step from being performed as a mental process because the person could decide to user personal data after a conversation has ended. 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.
EXAMINER NOTE: Claims 2-6 are NOT rejected as being directed solely to an abstract idea because these claims require generation of a synthesized voice and a person can only generate real voice. This amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 10-20 are also NOT rejected because they specifically control the storage of interaction data including audio data, which cannot be performed in the mind. This amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US PAP 2019/0371328).
Consider claim 10, Wang teaches a method implemented by one or more processors (abstract), the method comprising:
determining, based on user input received at an assistant device (0026, 0109, user says “please enter privacy mode”), to prevent non-transient storage of assistant interaction data (0026, privacy flag, 0028, if privacy flag, preventing long term storage) until one or more termination conditions are satisfied (0114, user may command to deactivate privacy mode);
while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being (0026, privacy flag, 0028, if privacy flag, preventing long term storage) satisfied:
processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device (0029-30, 0111 determining a user command, 0023, ASR, 0024, microphones);
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance (0026, privacy flag, 0028, if privacy flag, preventing long term storage);
causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device (0030-31 performing actions such as playing a playlist in according to command); and
responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data, preventing non-transient storage of the audio data, the recognized text, and/or the assistant response (0028, preventing long term storage of user data); and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions (0114, user says “deactivate privacy mode”) are satisfied:
enabling non-transient storage of assistant interaction data (0114, 115, once privacy mode ending command received, system returns to non-privacy mode method).
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) 11, 12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shuster et al. (US Patent 9,680,983).
Consider claim 11, Wang teaches the method of claim 10, but does not specifically teach wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises: causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data.
In the same filed of assistants with privacy mode, Shuster teaches wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises: causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data,. (col 3 lines 30-55, system may output responses in standard voice when not in private mode, but may output synthesized speech in a whisper if system is in a privacy mode, corresponding to no storing data in Wang).
Therefore, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of effective filing to use whispered speech for privacy as taught by Shuster in the system of Wang in order to protect responses from being heard from other people nearby (Shuster col 3 lines 35-40).
Consider claim 12, Shuster teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the particular synthesized voice is utilized, at least for the user, only when non-transient storage of assistant interaction data is being prevented (Col 3 lines 30-55, system may output responses in standard voice when not in private mode, but may output synthesized speech in a whisper if system is in a privacy mode, corresponding to no storing data in Wang).
Consider claim 19, Wang teaches the method of claim 11, wherein responsive to determining to prevent the non- transient storage of assistant interaction data, non-transient storage of the audio data and the recognized text is prevented (0028, 0105-106, preventing long term storage of data used to respond to user, which would include audio or recognized texts).
Consider claim 20, Wang teaches the method of claim 11, wherein responsive to determining to prevent the non- transient storage of assistant interaction data, non-transient storage of the audio data and the assistant response is prevented (0028, 0105-106, preventing long term storage of data used to respond to user, which would include audio or recognized texts).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Shuster as applied to claims, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Adams et al (US PAP 2020/0244788).
Consider claim 13, Wang and Shuster teaches The method of claim 12, but do not specifically teach: while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue; and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue.
In the same field of digital assistants, Adams teaches while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue (0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode.);
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue (019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. Thus the LED indicator would be turned off when not in privacy mode).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to indicate privacy mode status with an LED as taught by Adams in the system of Wang and Shuster in order to allow the user to easily know if a device is in privacy mode.
Consider claim 14, Wang and Adams teach The method of claim 13, further comprising, while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied:
causing a plurality of additional assistant devices, that are in addition to the assistant device, to each render a corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cue (Wang 0021, 0032, if a user has activated privacy mode at a first device, privacy mode may be activated at other associated speech devices, if user has not deactivated privacy mode. Adams, 0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode. Wang specifies that privacy mode may be set across devices at 0032).
Consider claim 15, Wang and Adams teach the method of claim 14, wherein causing the plurality of assistant devices, that are in addition to the assistant device, to each render the corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cue comprises transmitting, by the assistant device and to the plurality of assistant devices that are in addition to the assistant device, a command that causes the rendering of the corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cues (Wang 0032, user activates privacy mode at device 110a, and device 110b processes in privacy mode as a result. Thus a command must be sent to 110b to enter privacy mode. In Adams, LED display indicates when device is in privacy mode. Thus, the command sent in Wang would activate the LED in Adams in combination).
Consider claim 16, Wang and Shuster teaches The method of claim 11, but do not specifically teach: while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue; and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue.
In the same field of digital assistants, Adams teaches while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue (0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode.);
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue (019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. Thus the LED indicator would be turned off when not in privacy mode).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to indicate privacy mode status with an LED as taught by Adams in the system of Wang and Shuster in order to allow the user to easily know if a device is in privacy mode.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shuster as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Leblang et al. (US PAP 2019/0073998).
Consider claim 17, Wang and Shuster teach the method of claim 11, but do not specifically teach wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time.
In the same field of privacy modes, Leblang teaches wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time (0042, private session may last for time set by the user, i.e. for the next hour).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a time threshold as taught by Leblang in the system of Wang and Shuster in order to allow the privacy mode to be turned off without further user intervention, increasing user convenience.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shuster as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Feuz et al. (US PAP 2018/0241703).
Consider claim 8, Wang and Shuster teach The method of claim 11, but do not specifically teach wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input.
In the same field of privacy modes, Feuz teaches wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input (0054, privacy mode may be terminated when sensitive topic is discontinued).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a automatically end privacy mode as taught by Feuz in the system of Wang and Shuster in order to allow the privacy mode to be turned off without further user intervention, increasing user convenience.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Petrou et al. (US Patent 9,684,693).
Consider Claim 1, Wang teaches A method implemented by one or more processors (abstract), the method comprising:
determining, based on user input received at an assistant device (0026, 0109, user says “please enter privacy mode”), to prevent utilization of a personal data in generating assistant responses (0026, privacy flag, 0106, if privacy flag set, user ID information not sent to server for processing) until one or more termination conditions are satisfied (0114, user may command to deactivate privacy mode);
prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied (0026, privacy flag set):
processing audio data, using a speech recognition model, to generate recognized text of a spoken utterance, of a user, that is captured in the audio data, wherein the audio data is detected via one or more microphones of the assistant device (0029-30, 0111 determining a user command, 0023, ASR, 0024, microphones);
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance, wherein determining the assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance comprises, in response to determining to additionally prevent utilization of a personal data in generating assistant responses, determining the assistant response independent of the personal data (0030, generating system responses, 00106, if privacy flag set, user ID information not sent to server for processing ); and
causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device (0030-31 performing actions such as playing a playlist in according to command); and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied (0114, user says “deactivate privacy mode”):
enabling determining of assistant responses utilizing personal data 0114, 115, once privacy mode ending command received, system returns to non-privacy mode method).
Wang does not specifically teach determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses; and
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance, wherein determining the assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance comprises, in response to determining to additionally prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses, determining the assistant response independent of any personal data.
In the same field responding to user queries, Petrou teaches determining, based on user input received at an assistant device, to prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses (col 5 lines 25-34, withholding personal data based according to user input); and
determining, based on the recognized text, an assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance, wherein determining the assistant response that is responsive to the spoken utterance comprises, in response to determining to additionally prevent utilization of any personal data in generating assistant responses, determining the assistant response independent of any personal data (Col 5 lines 25-34, personal data withheld from server, and thus not used to generate a response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to not transmit personal data as taught by Petrou in the system of Wang in order to protect the privacy of users when using a shared data processing system.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Petrou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shuster et al. (US Patent 9,680,983).
Consider claim 2, Wang and Petrou teach the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises: causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data.
In the same filed of assistants with privacy mode, Shuster teaches wherein causing the assistant response to be rendered at the assistant device comprises: causing an audible portion of the assistant response to be rendered in a particular synthesized voice, wherein causing the audible portion to be rendered in the particular synthesized voice is responsive to determining to prevent the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data,. (col 3 lines 30-55, system may output responses in standard voice when not in private mode, but may output synthesized speech in a whisper if system is in a privacy mode, corresponding to no storing data in Wang).
Therefore, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of effective filing to use whispered speech for privacy as taught by Shuster in the system of Wang and Petrou in order to protect responses from being heard from other people nearby (Shuster col 3 lines 35-40).
Consider claim 3, Shuster teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the particular synthesized voice is utilized, at least for the user, only when non-transient storage of assistant interaction data is being prevented (Col 3 lines 30-55, system may output responses in standard voice when not in private mode, but may output synthesized speech in a whisper if system is in a privacy mode, corresponding to no storing data in Wang).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Petrou and Shuster as applied to claims, 2 above, and further in view of Adams et al (US PAP 2020/0244788).
Consider claim 4, Wang and Petrou and Shuster teaches The method of claim 2, but do not specifically teach: while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue; and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue.
In the same field of digital assistants, Adams teaches while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue (0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode.);
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue (019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. Thus the LED indicator would be turned off when not in privacy mode).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to indicate privacy mode status with an LED as taught by Adams in the system of Wang and Petrou and Shuster in order to allow the user to easily know if a device is in privacy mode.
Consider claim 5, Wang and Adams teach the method of claim 4, further comprising, while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied:
causing a plurality of additional assistant devices, that are in addition to the assistant device, to each render a corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cue (Wang 0021, 0032, if a user has activated privacy mode at a first device, privacy mode may be activated at other associated speech devices, if user has not deactivated privacy mode. Adams, 0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode. Wang specifies that privacy mode may be set across devices at 0032).
Consider claim 6, Wang and Adams teach the method of claim 5, wherein causing the plurality of assistant devices, that are in addition to the assistant device, to each render the corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cue comprises transmitting, by the assistant device and to the plurality of assistant devices that are in addition to the assistant device, a command that causes the rendering of the corresponding visually perceptible and/or audibly perceptible cues (Wang 0032, user activates privacy mode at device 110a, and device 110b processes in privacy mode as a result. Thus a command must be sent to 110b to enter privacy mode. In Adams, LED display indicates when device is in privacy mode. Thus, the command sent in Wang would activate the LED in Adams in combination).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Petrou as applied to claims, 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al (US PAP 2020/0244788).
Consider claim 7, Wang and Petrou teach The method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach: while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue; and
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue.
In the same field of digital assistants, Adams teaches while preventing the non-transient storage of assistant interaction data and prior to the one or more termination conditions being satisfied: causing the assistant device to render a visually perceptible cue (0019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. In combination with Wang, this would be indicated when Wang is in privacy mode.);
responsive to determining the one or more termination conditions are satisfied: causing the assistant device to cease rendering of the visually perceptible cue (019, LED display may be used to indicate with the smart speaker is in a privacy mode. Thus the LED indicator would be turned off when not in privacy mode).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to indicate privacy mode status with an LED as taught by Adams in the system of Wang and Petrou in order to allow the user to easily know if a device is in privacy mode.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Petrou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leblang et al. (US PAP 2019/0073998).
Consider claim 8, Wang and Petrou teach the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time.
In the same field of privacy modes, Leblang teaches wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise passage of a threshold amount of time (0042, private session may last for time set by the user, i.e. for the next hour).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a time threshold as taught by Leblang in the system of Wang and Petrou in order to allow the privacy mode to be turned off without further user intervention, increasing user convenience.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Petrou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feuz et al. (US PAP 2018/0241703).
Consider claim 9, Wang and Petrou teach the method of claim 11, but do not specifically teach wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input.
In the same field of privacy modes, Feuz teaches wherein the one or more termination conditions comprise completion of a dialog session that immediately follows the user input (0054, privacy mode may be terminated when sensitive topic is discontinued).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a automatically end privacy mode as taught by Feuz in the system of Wang and Petrou in order to allow the privacy mode to be turned off without further user intervention, increasing user convenience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ady (US PAP 2014/0372126) teaches a similar method of having a privacy mode for virtual assistants.
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
