Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 20212021002672 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/994,795 05/31/2018 Garett NELL P30331USC1/77870000245201 8472 150004 7590 08/11/2021 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER SONIFRANK, RICHA MISHRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patent.docket@dentons.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GARETT NELL, ROSHNI MALANI, SEAN P. BROWN, and BENJAMIN L. BRUMBAUGH ___________ Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–20 and 22–44 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 6. Claims 1, 17 and 33 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 11, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed March 12, 2021), the Final Action (mailed April 20, 2020), and the Answer (mailed January 15, 2021), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Apple, Inc. as the real party in Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 2 are independent. Claims 5 and 21 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. An oral hearing was held July 21, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to “intelligent automated assistants in a home environment.” Specification ¶ 3. Independent Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for operating a digital assistant, the method comprising: at an electronic device with a processor and memory: receiving discourse input representing a user request, wherein the discourse input defines a criterion using one or more ambiguous terms; determining whether the discourse input relates to a device of an established location; in response to determining that the discourse input relates to a device of an established location, retrieving a data structure representing a set of devices of the established location; determining, using the data structure and the discourse input, a user intent corresponding to: an action to be performed on a characteristic of a first device of the set of devices based on a characteristic of a second device of the set of devices included in the discourse input, wherein determining the user intent includes determining one or more quantitative threshold values corresponding to the one or more ambiguous terms defining the criterion based at least on historical data associated with the established location; and storing the action and the first device in association with the second device, wherein the action is performed on the interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 3 characteristic of the first device in accordance with a determination that the characteristic of the second device satisfies the criterion as defined by the one or more quantitative threshold values. References Name3 Reference Date Weilhammer US 2014/0324429 A1 October 30, 2014 Lang US 2017/0242653 A1 August 24, 2017 Nagasaka US 2018/0349084 A1 December 6, 2018 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1–4, 6–20 and 22–44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagasaka, Lang and Weilhammer. Final Action 2–10. ANALYSIS Claims 1–4, 6–8, 13–16, 17–20, 22–24, 29–33, 34–37 and 41–44 Appellant contends, that “neither of the cited paragraphs of Nagasaka, nor any other portion of any of the three references, disclose or suggest ‘wherein the discourse input defines a criterion using one or more ambiguous terms.’” Appeal Brief 15 (referring to Nagasaka ¶¶ 65, 162). Appellant argues that Nagasaki’s “input ‘when (temperature) becomes 29° C’ does not ‘define[] a criterion using one or more ambiguous terms’ that could be disambiguated to a corresponding quantitative threshold value, as required by the rest of claim 1.” Appeal Brief 15 (citing Nagasaka 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 4 ¶ 65). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because the arguments do not align with what the Specification discloses. Appellant provides numerous characterizations for ambiguous terms recited in claim 1: In some examples, the discourse input contains one or more ambiguous terms by virtue of being in natural language form. The one or more ambiguous terms, for example, each has more than one possible interpretation. For example, the discourse input is “Set the thermostat to sixty.” In this example, the discourse input is ambiguous with respect to defining the device for performing the requested action. Specifically, in the context of an established location, such as the user’s home, there can be several devices associated with the term “thermostat,” such as a central heating unit, a bedroom space heater, or a living room air conditioning unit. It is thus ambiguous as to which device the user is referring to in the discourse input. Additionally, in the same example, the discourse input is ambiguous with respect to defining the specific action being requested. For example, one or more devices in the established location are capable of adjusting the temperature as well as the humidity. The discourse input is thus ambiguous as to whether the user wishes to adjust the temperature of a device to sixty degrees Fahrenheit or to adjust the humidity of a device to sixty percent relative humidity. Specification ¶ 208 (emphasis added). Nagasaka discloses that “[i]t is desired to provide a technology capable of easily recording a program for obtaining an intention of a user from text data corresponding to dialogue using a natural language.” Nagasaka Abstract. As defined by the Specification, Nagasaka discloses “ambiguous terms by virtue of being in natural language form.” See Specification ¶ 208. Nagasaka discloses “there are various requests from a user such as ‘please turn on the air conditioner’, ‘please turn on the air conditioner when (temperature) becomes 29° C’, and ‘please turn on the air Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 5 conditioner and turn on the air circulator fan when (temperature) becomes 29° C.’” Nagasaka ¶ 65. Again, as defined by the Specification, Nagasaka discloses ambiguous terms because there could be several devices associated with the terms “air conditioner” and “air circulator fan.” See Specification ¶ 208. Appellant further argues that “the terms contained in the user requests disclosed by Nagasaka are unambiguous, quantitative terms (‘29° C’)” and as a result “no other inputs disclosed by Nagasaka define a criterion in ambiguous terms that could be disambiguated into a quantitative threshold value.” Appeal Brief 15 (emphasis omitted) (citing Nagasaka ¶ 65). The Specification discloses: [T]he threshold value is ambiguous in the discourse input and thus a quantitative threshold value may need to be interpreted from the discourse input. For example, the discourse input is “Turn on the kitchen fan when it gets too hot.” In this example, based on the words “when it gets too hot,” the criterion is determined to be detecting the temperature of an electronic thermometer exceeding a threshold value. The threshold value is determined based on the phrase “too hot” and one or more knowledge sources. Specification ¶ 262 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because Nagasaka discloses, “When the agent is capable of detecting events in such a way, it is expected that the agent also becomes capable of detecting context” and “When the agent is capable of detecting context, there is a possibility that the agent talks to a user by using the detected context as a start point.” Nagasaka ¶ 161 (emphasis added). Furthermore, in addition to disclosing terms that are unambiguous, as alleged by Appellant, Nagasaka also discloses terms that are ambiguous: Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 6 [I]t is also considered that basic knowledge (such as knowledge related to temperature, weather, and the like) is given to the agent. For example, it is considered that basic user feelings are given to the agent such as “temperature of 28° C. or more means hot” “temperature of 15° C. or less means cold”, “users hate drying” “rain means sad”, and “users hate pollens”. This enables the agent to tune its functions such that the functions match a user that the agent stays together. Nagasaka ¶ 162 (emphasis added); see Final Action 4; see also Appeal Brief 14–16. A user’s feeling or intent is provided to the agent such as “users hate drying” “rain means sad”, and “users hate pollens” in ambiguous terms wherein the feeling or intent includes quantitative threshold values corresponding to the ambiguous terms. See Nagasaka ¶ 162. For example, the intent that “users hate drying” could signify the humidity of the environment is too dry or low based upon the users’ preference; the intent that “rain means sad” could signify that a certain level of precipitation evokes a specific emotional response from the user; and the intent that “users hate pollens” could signify that the Air Quality Index is beyond an acceptable level for the user’s comfort. See Nagasaka ¶ 162. Accordingly, Nagasaka discloses a criterion in ambiguous terms that can be disambiguated into a quantitative threshold value. Appellant further contends that Lang fails to cure the deficiencies of Nagasaka because “Lang discloses receiving voice commands, such as ‘play music in the Kitchen,’ but does not disclose or suggest any inputs ‘defin[ing] a criterion,’ let alone defining a criterion ‘using one or more ambiguous terms.’” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant argues that Weilhammer fails to disclose “wherein determining the user intent includes determining one or more quantitative threshold values corresponding to the one or more Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 7 ambiguous terms defining the criterion based at least on historical data,” as recited in claim 1, because Weilhammer fails to discloses a “discourse input defin[ing] a criterion using one or more ambiguous terms” and therefore, “Weilhammer, too, fails to cure the deficiencies of Nagasaka and Lang.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because Nagasaka is not deficient as Appellant alleges for the reason that Nagasaka discloses ambiguous terms as recited by claim 1 and defined by the Specification, as discussed above. “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we discern no meaningful difference between claim 1’s quantitative threshold values and Nagasaka determining one or more quantitative threshold values corresponding to the one or more ambiguous terms. See Nagasaka ¶ ¶ 161–62. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 17 and 33, argued together, as well as “all claims depending therefrom” unless otherwise discussed below. See Appeal Brief 13. Claims 9, 25, and 38 Claim 9 recites: “The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition includes a requirement that the action was performed less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time.” The Specification discloses that “the criterion includes the requirement that the action was performed less than a predetermined number Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 8 of times within a predetermined period of time. For example, the discourse input is ‘Allow Owen access to the TV three times a week.’” Specification ¶ 268. Appellant argues, “Nagasaka’s disclosure of recording a correspondence when a process is completed within a predetermined period of time after an event is detected fails to disclose or suggest ‘a requirement that the action was performed less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time.”’ Appeal Brief 25; see Final Action 7 (citing Nagasaka ¶¶ 93, 96–99). Appellant further argues that “[a]t most, Nagasaka discloses a requirement that a process (turning on the lights) be performed at least once within a predetermined period of time after another event (closing the curtains) occurs prior to recording the correspondence.” Appeal Brief 25 (emphasis omitted). Appellant concludes that “Nagasaka does not disclose or suggest a requirement that turning on the lights be performed less than a predetermined number of times within the predetermined period.” Appeal Brief 26 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because claim 9 merely requires that an indeterminate quantitative limit be placed upon an unspecified action during an undetermined period of time, whereas Nagasaka does not explicitly limit the performance to an action or process. We note, however, that placing a limit on the action or process would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art especially in light of the Specification. Furthermore, Appellant has not demonstrated that modifying Nagasaka by placing a limit on the performance or action would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” and we find the proposed modification would have been within the Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 9 purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see also Specification ¶ 268. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 9, 25, and 38, argued together. See Appeal Brief 27. Claim 10–12, 26–28, 39, and 40 Claim 10 recites: “The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition includes a requirement that a time of the electronic device is equal to or greater than a reference time.” The Specification discloses: [T]he criterion includes the requirement that a time indicated on the electronic device be equal to or after a reference time or within a range of reference times. The reference time is with respect to hours and minutes or with respect to a particular date. In some examples, the reference time is an absolute time. For example, the discourse input is “Turn on the porch light at 7 pm.” In this example, the criterion includes detecting that the current time is equal to 7 pm. Specification ¶ 269. Appellant contends: Nagasaka’s disclosure of recording a correspondence when a process is completed within a predetermined period of time after an event is detected fails to disclose or suggest “a requirement that a time of the electronic device is equal to or greater than a reference time.” Rather, Nagasaka at most discloses a requirement that a correspondence is only recorded if a process is completed at a time less than a predetermined amount of time relative to the time of an event. Appeal Brief 28 (emphasis omitted); see Final Action 7 (citing Nagasaka ¶¶ 96–99). Appeal 2021-002672 Application 15/994,795 10 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because claim 10 merely places an unspecified time requirement on an electronic device that is compared to an unstipulated reference time, whereas Nagasaka does not explicitly indicate a time requirement for an electronic device. We note, however, that placing a time requirement on an electric device would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art especially in light of the Specification. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418; see also Specification ¶ 269. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10–12, 26–28, 39, and 40, argued together. See Appeal Brief 29. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–20, 22–44 103 Nagasaka, Lang, Weilhammer 1–4, 6–20, 22–44 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation