Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-52 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a second detection device configured to” should be “the second detection device configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first detection device configured to – corresponding to the description of Figs. 1 and 4”, “second detection device configured to -corresponding to the description of Figs. 1 and 4” and “target device configured to - corresponding to the description of Figs. 1 and 4” in claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13, 16-17, 20, 22, 26 and 46.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20, 23-24, 27-46 and 49-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,862. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
9. Claims 21-22, 25-26, 47-48 and 51-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,862. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “the activation command comprises one or more of a wake word, a keyword, a device name, or a function name”, “ the second detection device is further configured to determine, based on the activation command, the received command signal”, “ wherein the received command signal is indicative of the user command and wherein the user command comprises the command to cause the target device to perform one or more of change a channel, adjust volume, power on, power off, adjust temperature, initiate an arm function, initiate a disarm function, retrieve further information, or initiate an application” and “wherein the second detection device is further configured to determine, at a second processing level, the audio signal, wherein the first detection device detects the activation signal at a first processing level that is less active than the second processing level.” are conventional prior art features and the use of such feature in claims 1, 13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,862 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
10. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 20-28, 31-35, 37, 39-41, 43 and 46-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,098. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
11. Claims 3-4, 10, 12, 16, 18-19, 29-30, 36, 38, 42 and 44-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,098. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “the first detection device is further configured to: determine that the second detection device is proximate to the user; and cause the second detection device to exit a lower power mode”, “ the second detection device is further configured to, based on the activation signal, cause one or more of a microphone, a motion sensor, or a camera associated with the second detection device to activate.”, “ the target device comprises one or more of a TV, a DVR, a set top box, a radio, a thermostat, a light source, a security system, the first detection device, or the second detection device.”, “the second detection device has less available power than the first detection device, and wherein the second detection device is physically closer to the user than the first detection device.” and “wherein to determine, based on the second portion of the audio signal, the command, the second detection device is configured to: determine, based on a time-based subdivision of the second portion of the audio signal, recognized phonemes within the second portion of the audio signal; determine, based on the recognized phonemes, word phrases; and determine the command by comparing the word phrases to one or more action commands.” are conventional prior art features and the use of such feature in claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,098 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 25-26 and 51-52 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the command to cause…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 26 and 52, the phrase "the first detection device detect the activation signal" renders the claims indefinite because in claims 20 and 46 the first detection device detect the audio signal and transmit the activation signal; the first detection device is not configured to detect the activation signal. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the command to cause…" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
15. Claims 8 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “the second detection device is configured to determine that the second audio signal indicate a command” is already claimed in claims 1 and 27 and thus fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims 1 and 27. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
18. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-18, 27-37, 39-41 and 43-44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mozer (US 2009/0043580) in view of Hou (US 2002/0126035).
For claim 1, Mozer discloses a system comprising:
a first detection device [Fig. 5-6; auxiliary device sensing device 560/660] configured to:
detect a first audio signal generated by a user (auxiliary device sensing device 560/660 detecting sound from a user in fig 5-6, para 0054, 0057, 0081);
determine that the first audio signal comprises an activation indication (detect a specific sound such as a whistle or number of claps in fig 5-6, para 0054, 0057, 0081); and
send, to a second detection device proximate to the user, based on the activation indication, an activation signal, wherein the activation signal causes the second detection device to activate (send signal to close a switch 540/640to power speech recognizer 530/630 in fig 5-6, para 0054, 0057, 0081); and
the second detection device configured to: detect a second audio signal generated by the user (0053-0054).
Mozer fails to expressly disclose; determine that the second audio signal indicates a command; and cause the command to be executed.
However, as shown by Hoi, it was well known in the art of control using audio signal to include determine that the audio signal indicates a command; and cause the command to be executed [E.g. 0020, 0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of touch device at the time of the invention to modify Mozer with the teaching of Hou in order to enable the user to control more a specific function of a target device and thereby enhance the overall user experience, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 2, Mozer discloses wherein the first detection device is configured for lower fidelity audio signal detection relative to the second detection device [E.g. 0059-006, 0048; second circuit or state with higher resolution for command processing with increased accuracy].
For claim 3, Mozer discloses wherein the first detection device is further configured to: determine that the second detection device is proximate to the user [E.g. 0007: a proximity detector that turns on a speech recognizer in a cell phone and an elevator, respectively, when a potential user is nearby]; and cause the second detection device to exit a lower power mode [E.g. 0048: wake up circuit 290 and recognizer 230 are configured to draw very little current from power supply 250 while in the first state. However, wake up circuit 290 is able to receive and process an audio signal. When a signal is received, recognizer 230 reconfigures itself and wake up circuit 290 into a second state that is suitable for receiving and processing signals for speech recognition. In the second state, wake up circuit 290 receives and processes signals with higher resolution so that the processed signals can be analyzed by recognizer 230. Additionally, the recognizer is configured to be a fully functional recognizer and is taken out of its low power mode].
For claim 4, Mozer discloses wherein the second detection device is further configured to, based on the activation signal, cause one or more of a microphone [E.g. 0059: processor 740 reconfigures the system using signal lines 705 to turn the high resolution audio channel 720 on and reconfigure the microphone power control circuit 730 so that the higher resolution signal can be passed through the microphone through the high resolution audio channel 72], a motion sensor, or a camera associated with the second detection device to activate.
For claim 5, Mozer discloses wherein the first detection device is powered by a continuous power source [E.g. 0006, 0066, 0075], and wherein the second detection device is powered by battery power [0054].
For claim 6, Mozer fails to expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first detection device or the second detection device comprises a plurality of devices.
However, as shown by Hoi, it was well known in the art of control using audio signal to include wherein at least detection device comprises a plurality of devices [E.g. 0020, 0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of touch device at the time of the invention to modify Mozer with the teaching of Hou in order to enable the user to control more than one device using a signal device and thereby improve the overall system, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 7, Mozer discloses wherein the second detection device comprises one or more of a remote control [0005], a smartphone [0007, 0081], a microphone [abstract; Figs. 1-15], a camera [0005], or a portable computer.
For claim 8, Mozer in view of Hou discloses wherein one or more of the first detection device, the second detection device, or a computing device are configured to determine that the second audio signal indicates the command [see claim 1 analysis; the second detection device is configured to determine that the second audio signal indicate a command].
For claim 9, Mozer in view of Hou further teaches wherein to cause the command to be executed, the second detection device is configured to send the command to a target device, wherein the target device executes the command [E.g. Hou; 0028, 0035].
For claim 10, Mozer in view of Hou further teaches wherein the target device comprises one or more of a TV [Hou; Fig. 1: element 21], a DVR, a set top box, a radio, a thermostat, a light source, a security system, the first detection device, or the second detection device.
For claim 11, Mozer in view of Hou further teaches wherein to cause the command to be executed, the second detection device is configured to send the command to a plurality of target devices [E.g. Hou; 0022, 0028].
For claim 13, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1 except for the first device detecting a first portion of an audio signal generated by a user, determine based on the first portion an activation indication and the second device detecting a second portion of the audio signal generated by the user and the second device determining based on the second portion of the audio signal, a user command associated with a target device.
Therefore claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Mozer and Hoi for the reasons applied above to claim 1 and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made / claims were filed to have included in the combination applied above the first device detecting a first portion of an audio signal generated by a user, determine based on the first portion an activation indication and the second device detecting a second portion of the audio signal generated by the user and the second device determining based on the second portion of the audio signal, a user command associated with a target device in view of Mozer disclosing second circuit/state with second channel for detecting a voice command with increased accuracy (para 0014, 0048, 0059-0065) that is limited to a timeout 1607 after first circuit/state detecting the wakeup voice trigger word (fig 16, para 0054-0056, 0069-0071, 0077). The input is an audio sequence of trigger/key word(s) followed by command word(s) in Mozer (par 0015, 0054, 0069-0079).
For claim 14, Mozer in view of Hou further teaches wherein the command comprises one or more of an activation command or an action command [E.g. Hou; 0020].
For claim 15, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 2.
For claim 17, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 9.
For claim 18, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 10.
For claim 27, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 28, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 2.
For claim 29, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 3.
For claim 30, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 4.
For claim 31, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 5.
For claim 32, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 6.
For claim 33, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 7.
For claim 34, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 8.
For claim 35, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 9.
For claim 36, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 10.
For claim 37, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 11.
For claim 39, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 13.
For claim 40, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 14.
For claim 41, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 2.
For claim 43, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 9.
For claim 44, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 10.
19. Claims 12, 19, 38 and 45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mozer in view of Hou and further in view of Shamoon et al. (Shamoon; US 2006/0105760).
For claim 12, Mozer in view of Hou fails to expressly disclose wherein the second detection device has less available power than the first detection device, and wherein the second detection device is physically closer to the user than the first detection device.
However, as shown by Shamoon, it was well known in the art of detection devices to include wherein a second detection device (cellular phone carried by the user) has less available power than a first detection device (base control unit is mounted on a wall with continuous power via connector 108), and wherein the second detection device is physically closer to the user than the first detection device [E.g. 0069, 0022, 0028; the cellular phone is physically closer to the user than the base unit].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of touch device at the time of the invention to modify Mozer in view of Hou with the teaching of Shamoon as it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 19, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 12.
For claim 38, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 12.
For claim 45, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 12.
20. Claims 16 and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mozer in view of Hou further in view of Mau (US 2008/0312935) and Amin (T. B. Amin and I. Mahmood, "Speech Recognition using Dynamic Time Warping," 2008 2nd International Conference on Advances in Space Technologies, Islamabad, 2008, pp. 74-79, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4747690&isnumber=4747669; provided in the IDS).
For claim 16, Mozer in view of Hou fails to expressly disclose wherein to determine, based on the second portion of the audio signal, the command, the second detection device is configured to: determine, based on a time-based subdivision of the second portion of the audio signal, recognized phonemes within the second portion of the audio signal; determine, based on the recognized phonemes, word phrases; and determine the command by comparing the word phrases to one or more action commands.
However, as shown by Mau, it was well known in the art of detection devices to determine, based on second portion of the audio signal, recognized phonemes within the second portion of the audio signal; determine, based on the recognized phonemes, word phrases; and determine the command by comparing the word phrases to one or more action commands [0010, 0013, 0024-0026.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of touch device at the time of the invention to modify Mozer in view of Hou with the teaching of Mau in order to easily determine a function in the speech detection and thereby improve the overall voice command ability as it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Mau does not explicitly disclose determine, based on a time-based subdivision of the second portion of the audio signal.
In an analogous art, Amin determine, based on a time-based subdivision of the second portion of the audio signal (Section III; Section IV.C; Section H.A; Section VII; Speech is a time dependent-process. Success of the speech detection algorithm depends on detecting speech signals from silence periods, i.e. performing time-based subdivision on the audio signal. Additionally, a continuous speech signal may be windowed into individual frames in the time domain, i.e. performing time-based subdivision on the audio signal).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Amin's time-based subdivision of audio signals in speech detection in the speech detection system of Mozer, Hou, and Mau, since Mau discloses that speech detection may be based on dynamic time warping-based speech recognition, and Amin discloses that time-based subdivision of audio signals is used in time warping-based speech recognition.
For claim 42, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 16.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barry (US 2011/0067075; teaches mobile device having a controller to detect a location of a user by detecting at least one of a network associated with the user and a location of the mobile device, wherein the location of the user includes a media processor, transmit a request for an audio command intended for the media processor to a server on a communications network after detecting the location of the user).
Kortum et al. (US 2008/0100492; teaches determining an active device function to which the first control corresponds, where the active device function is a first function of a first device when the first device is active and where the active device function is a second function of a second device when the second device is active; and triggering emission of an audible signal identifying the active device function).
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights