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 sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 02/28/2025 for application number 19067066. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained below.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising
Receiving, via a data interface, an audio file including a user interaction prompt
Receiving, via a sensor, an audio input
Performing an interactive action based on a determination that the audio input is responsive to the user interaction prompt.
Step (a) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person
can receive audio including a prompt to deliver to the user.
Step (b) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can receive an audio input such as in a conversation.
Step (c) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine whether a particular piece of audio was responsive to a prompt.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any
statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least method. Thus, the claim is a
process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A, Prong
One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the
judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of steps (a)-(c) recites a mental process.
Specifically, step (a) can be performed by a human as a person can receive audio including a prompt to deliver to the user.
Step (b) can be performed by a human as a person can receive an audio input such as in a conversation.
Step (c) can be performed by a human as a person can determine whether a particular piece of audio was responsive to a prompt.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See
MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recited additional elements including a user device, a data interface, and a sensor. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions, such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. The use of these elements to receive an audio file including a user interaction prompt, receive an audio input, and determine whether the input is responsive to the prompt merely automates the mental processes described above using generic computer components. Such implementation does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed with
respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, a user device, a data interface, and a sensor comprise additional elements that perform well- understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As known in the art these elements are well understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computing device. Even when considered in combination these additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and perform insignificant extra - solutional activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a mental process as a human can prompt another person to speak a particular phrase.
Claim 3 recites a mental process as a human can determine whether a response includes a particular phrase.
Claim 4 further recites performing the determination using a neural network based model, which merely implements the determination using a generic computer model.
Claim 5 recites a mental process as a human can as a human can provide a responsive audio message based on a received response.
Claim 6 recites a mental process as a human can provide an additional prompt requesting further user interaction.
Claim 7 recites a mental process as a human can receive a response to an additional prompt and communicate information based on that response.
Claim 8 recites a mental process as a human can request that a text message be sent to a particular phone number.
Claim 9 recites a mental process as a human can receive a second response and perform a second action based on that response.
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) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maas et al. (US 11361763 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Maas teaches a method for user interaction performed by a user device, the method (Fig. 1, teaches the system as a whole) comprising: receiving, via a data interface, an audio file including a user interaction prompt (Fig. 7A where the server sends the audio data (720) to the device to be output to the user and Col. 3, Ln. 24-26, “the server(s) 120 may cause the device to output synthesized speech (or another form of prompt) soliciting the additional information from the user.”); receiving, via a sensor, an audio input (Col. 4, Ln. 34-37, “the device 110 continuously receives input audio via one or more microphones of the device”); And performing an interactive action based on a determination that the audio input is responsive to the user interaction prompt (Col. 3, Ln. 30-33, “If the user speaks the additional information in response to the prompt … the additional speech may be captured by the device. The device may then send audio data corresponding to the additional information to the server(s)” and Col. 5, Ln. 1-8, “The server(s) 120 may then perform natural language processing on the input text data to determine NLU results… The server(s) 120 may then cause (14) the command to be executed using the NLU results”, where if the user’s response is in response to the prompt, the audio data is sent to the server and a command is executed).
Regarding claim 4, Maas teaches wherein the determination is based on a neural network based model. (Col. 6, Ln. 64-67, “This approach can be extended to include discriminative information by incorporating hybrid DNN-HMM decoding framework”).
Regarding claim 5, Maas teaches wherein the interactive action includes playing a responsive audio file. (Fig. 7B and 7C, where 750 is the interactive action in response to the user input and is an audio file responsive to the second audio input 732.).
Regarding claim 6, Maas teaches wherein the interactive action includes an additional user interaction prompt. (Col. 3, Ln. 24-26, “the server(s) 120 may cause the device to output synthesized speech (or another form of prompt) soliciting the additional information from the user.” And 7B where the server sends another audio output in response to user input which can be a further prompt).
Regarding claim 7, Maas teaches receiving, via the sensor, a second audio input in response to the additional user interaction prompt (Col. 3, Ln. 30-34, “If the user speaks the additional information in response to the prompt … the additional speech may be captured by the device” and Fig. 7B which shows the second audio input happening in response to the audio input); And transmitting a message to a remote server based on the second audio input. (Col. 3, Ln. 34-36, “The device may then send audio data corresponding to the additional information to the server(s)…”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas (US 11361763 B1) in view of Spector (US20070055517).
Regarding claim 2, Maas doesn’t teach wherein the user interaction prompt is a prompt to speak a particular phrase.
However, Spector teaches wherein the user interaction prompt is a prompt to speak a particular phrase (Para 0030, “The intercom asks the user to state [the] pass phrase…”, wherein the user is given a disposable pass phrase and then states it”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maas before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Spector in order to improve reliability in confirming that a user provided the expected spoken response, (Para 0030).
Regarding claim 3, Maas doesn’t teach wherein the determination that the audio input is responsive to the user interaction prompt includes determining if the audio input includes the particular phrase.
However, Spector teaches wherein the determination that the audio input is responsive to the user interaction prompt includes determining if the audio input includes the particular phrase. (Para 0010, “The spoken pass phrase is compared to the disposable pass phrase”, to determine whether it matches”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maas before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Spector in order to improve reliability in confirming that a user provided the expected spoken response, (Para 0030).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas (US 11361763 B1) in view of Naidu (US10325599).
Regarding claim 8, Maas doesn’t teach wherein the message to the remote server includes a command to send a text message to a phone number associated with the user device.
However, Ryan teaches wherein the message to the remote server includes a command to send a text message to a phone number associated with the user device. (Col. 28, Ln. 55-63, “The server 120 may then perform (926) NLU processing on the second text data to determine that the second text data corresponds to a command to send a second message to the message source… [and] identify (930) a third device associated with the contact identifier (e.g., a device associated with the phone number…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maas before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Naidu in order to enable a responsive command to be delivered using a greater number of mediums.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas (US 11361763 B1) in view of Ryan (US12412574).
Regarding claim 9, Maas does not teach receiving, via a sensor, a second audio input; and performing a second interactive action based on the second audio input.
However, Ryan teaches receiving, via a sensor, a second audio input (Col. 10, Ln. 5-20, “In this iterative process, the listener 175 drives the output of questions and prompt to the user”, Col. 9, Ln. 30-44, “After the listener component 175 causes the question to be presented to the user 105, the user 105 may provide a responsive user input”); and performing a second interactive action based on the second audio input (Col. 10, Ln. 12-22, “The conversational assessment component 180 drives the identification of the next prompt or question” where in an interactive process, the system uses the user response to identify and output the next prompt or question).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maas before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ryan in order to permit continued user interaction through multiple successive spoken inputs and responsive actions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALAN FOSTER JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8874. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00am - 5:00pm, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/MICHAEL A FOSTER JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights