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 the submission filed January 27, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 28, 2025, is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed to methods for determining truncation in received audio and determining probable commands within the received audio.
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a voice command that comprises audio data for at least a portion of the voice command, is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person listening to audio that includes someone speaking a command;
determining presence of truncation in the audio data, wherein said determining comprises analyzing volume levels in the audio data, can be achieved by the person listening to the audio and determining that portions of the audio were at a lower volume than other portions of the audio;
and determining, based on the determination of truncation, one or more probable commands, can be achieved by the person understanding the context of the words spoken around reduced volume portions and mentally determining the commands the speaker intended.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computing device and generic computer components. 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 because the recited generic computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, audio data associated with a voice command, is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person listening to audio that includes someone speaking a command;
determining, based on volume levels in the audio data, presence of truncation in the audio data, can be achieved by the person listening to the audio and determining that portions of the audio were at a lower volume than other portions of the audio;
generating a transcript of the voice command, can be achieved by the person, using pen and paper, converting the heard words to text;
determining, based on the determination of truncation, a plurality of commands corresponding to the transcript, can be achieved by the person understanding the context of the words spoken around reduced volume portions and mentally determining the commands the speaker intended;
selecting, based on at least one of context information and user preference information associated with a multi-media device, a command of the plurality of commands, can be achieved by the person understanding the context of the words spoken around reduced volume portions and mentally determining the commands the speaker intended;
and causing performance, by the multi-media device, of the selected command, can be achieved by the person controlling the multi-media device to perform the selected command.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computing device, a generic multi-media device and generic computer components. 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 because the recited generic computing device, a generic multi-media device and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computing device, a generic multi-media device and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is directed to a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a voice command that comprises audio data for at least a portion of the voice command, is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person listening to audio that includes someone speaking a command;
determining, based on abnormal volume levels at a beginning or end of the audio data, a type of truncation in the audio data can be achieved by the person listening to the audio and determining that portions of the audio were at a lower volume than other portions of the audio;
and determining, based on the determined type of truncation, one or more probable commands, can be achieved by the person understanding the context of the words spoken around reduced volume portions and mentally determining the commands the speaker intended.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computing device and generic computer components. 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 because the recited generic computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing or manipulating functions and commands for the audio portions and/or transcribed text, processing and analyzing words to determine intended commands; and executing the various commands via devices and/or other people. The recited limitations of the independent claims can be implemented or achieved via mental processing and/or pen and paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0080177) in view of Hassan et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0247758), hereinafter Hassan.
Chen teaches speech recognition repair using contextual information [fig 1; fig 3]. Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a voice command that comprises audio data for at least a portion of the voice command [user speaks commands -- fig 1; fig 3; para 0026; 0034-40]; determining to repair errors in the recognition [para 0026; 0043-0061] and determining one or more probable commands [repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061]. Chen fails to teach, but Hassan teaches determining presence of truncation in audio data, wherein said determining comprises analyzing volume levels in the audio data [para 0024;0057], and suggests for wireless peripherals to function correctly, seamless connectivity and uninterrupted service are important for ensuring effective communication sessions [para 0010]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the audio volume level analysis to detect portions of missed audio suggested by Hassan, in the system of Chen, to ensure effective communication sessions, as taught by Hassan, so as to improve system performance and enhance the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, based on location [Chen’s repair position list – para 0048; 0050-0055] of abnormal volume levels in the audio data, a type of truncation [Hassan’s volume analysis].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, based on a volume level at a starting point of the voice command exceeding a threshold, that the voice command comprises head-truncated user speech [Chen’s repair position list includes starting at point 0– para 0048; 0050-0055].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, based on a transcript of the voice command [Chen at para 0029; 0034], sensitivity to truncation in the voice command, wherein the determining the presence of truncation is based on the determined sensitivity [Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches the determining the presence of truncation is based on one or more of: status of hardware associated with generating the voice command; or network quality associated with receiving the voice command [Hassan’s para 0057 -- comparisons may be utilized, such as, for example, comparing the signal-to-noise ratio, clarity, and volume levels before and after the handover to ensure that the audio quality has not degraded, which could indicate a change in the communication environment or device].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches generating a transcript of the voice command [Chen at para 0029; 0034], wherein the determining the one or more probable commands comprises determining, further based on the transcript, the one or more probable commands [Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040; repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches the one or more probable commands are associated with a multi-media device [Chen para 0004 – smartphone with speech assistant application with multiple applications], the method further comprising: selecting, based on at least one of context information and user preference information associated with the multi-media device, a command of the one or more probable commands [“call”, “stop” -- para 0004; 0007; 0025; Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040; repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061; 0066].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining the presence based on a determined probability of truncation [Hassan para 0029-0030], the method further comprising: determining a type of truncation [Chen’s repair position list includes starting at point 0– para 0048; 0050-0055]; and determining, based on the determined type of truncation and the determined probability of truncation, a confidence level associated with the one or more probable commands [Chen’s scores or confidence levels -- para 0005-0006; 0036; 0066].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches: determining confidence levels for the one or more probable commands [Chen’s scores or confidence levels-- para 0005-0006; 0036].; and selecting, based on the confidence levels, a command of the one or more probable commands [Chen’s scores or confidence levels-- para 0005-0006; 0036].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches sending an indication of a command, of the one or more probable commands, to a second computing device [Chen’s media player – para 0071].
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, audio data associated with a voice command [user speaks commands -- fig 1; fig 3; para 0026; 0034-40]; generating a transcript of the voice command [Chen at para 0029; 0034]; determining to repair errors in the recognition [para 0026; 0043-0061]; determining, a plurality of commands corresponding to the transcript [Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040; repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061]; selecting, based on at least one of context information and user preference information associated with a multi-media device [Chen para 0004 – smartphone with speech assistant application with multiple applications], a command of the plurality of commands [Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040; repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061]; and causing performance, by the multi-media device, of the selected command [“call”, “stop” -- para 0004; 0007; 0025; Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040; repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061; 0066]. Chen fails to teach, but Hassan teaches determining presence of truncation in audio data, wherein said determining comprises analyzing volume levels in the audio data [para 0024;0057], and suggests for wireless peripherals to function correctly, seamless connectivity and uninterrupted service are important for ensuring effective communication sessions [para 0010]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the audio volume level analysis to detect portions of missed audio suggested by Hassan, in the system of Chen, to ensure effective communication sessions, as taught by Hassan, so as to improve system performance and enhance the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, based on location [Chen’s repair position list – para 0048; 0050-0055] of abnormal volume levels in the audio data, a type of truncation [Hassan’s volume analysis].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches wherein the determining the plurality of commands corresponding to the transcript is further based on comparing the transcript with common commands [Chen’s database of commands are used to find match from the text output -- para 0005-0006; 0036; 0066].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, for the transcript, sensitivity to truncation [Chen’s context processing – para 0034-0040].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches wherein the selecting the command is further based on confidence levels for the plurality of commands [Chen’s scores or confidence levels -- para 0005-0006; 0036].
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a voice command that comprises audio data for at least a portion of the voice command [user speaks commands -- fig 1; fig 3; para 0026; 0034-40]; determining to repair errors in the recognition [para 0026; 0043-0061] and determining, one or more probable commands [repaired text provided as actual commands – 0026; 0043-0061]. Chen fails to teach, but Hassan teaches determining presence of truncation in audio data, wherein said determining comprises analyzing volume levels in the audio data [para 0024;0057], and suggests for wireless peripherals to function correctly, seamless connectivity and uninterrupted service are important for ensuring effective communication sessions [para 0010]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the audio volume level analysis to detect portions of missed audio suggested by Hassan, in the system of Chen, to ensure effective communication sessions, as taught by Hassan, so as to improve system performance and enhance the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining, based on a volume level at a starting point of the voice command exceeding a threshold [Hassan’s volume analysis], that the voice command comprises head-truncated user speech [Chen’s repair position list includes starting at point 0– para 0048; 0050-0055].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches the determining the type of truncation comprises: determining, based on a volume level [Hassan’s volume analysis], at an end point of the voice command exceeding a threshold, that the voice command comprises tail-truncated user speech [Chen’s repair position list includes the ending or last location– para 0048; 0050-0055].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches determining the type based on comparing the volume levels and reference data [Hassan’s para 0024; 0057 -- comparisons may be utilized, such as, for example, comparing the signal-to-noise ratio, clarity, and volume levels before and after the handover to ensure that the audio quality has not degraded, which could indicate a change in the communication environment or device].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Hassan teaches sending a command, of the one or more probable commands, to a second computing device [Chen’s media player – para 0071].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones et al (US Patent No. 12,711,962) discloses systems and methods for audio processing for capturing first sound data via at least one microphone of a network microphone device and determines, via a voice activity detection process, that the first sound data does not include voice activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights