Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020003839 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

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.
15/475,528 03/31/2017 Brandon Gruber 81230.937US1 7451
34018 7590 09/15/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON GRUBER

Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, AMBER L. HAGY, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed March 31, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed June 27, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Nov. 8,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Feb. 24, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed Apr. 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “[A]pplicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ecolink Intelligent
Technology. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for
interacting with an intelligent personal assistant by reducing or eliminating
the need to utter a wake word or phrase. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 19. Figure 1, reproduced
below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 depicts assistant 100 including cameras 102, audio
transducers 104, and speakers 106. Id. ¶ 20. Upon receiving a signal from
cameras 102 indicating that a user is looking or gazing at assistant 100 for a
predetermined period of time (e.g., 2 seconds) while providing a voice input
to assistant 100, assistant 100 provides data indicative of the user’s voice
input to a remote server for processing without the user having to utter the
wake word/phrase. Id. ¶¶ 21–23.
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
3
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative:
1. An intelligent personal assistant, comprising:
an audio transducer;
a memory for storing processor-executable instructions;
a camera for providing an image of an area around the
intelligent personal assistant;
a network interface; and
a processor coupled to the audio transducer, the memory,
the camera, and the network interface for executing the
processor-executable instructions that causes the intelligent
personal assistant to:
determine, via the image provided by the camera,
that a user is addressing the intelligent personal assistant;
receive, via the audio transducer, a voice input;
and
provide, via the network interface, data indicative
of the voice input to a remote server for processing only
when both the voice input was received and the user has
addressed the intelligent personal assistant within a
predetermined time period.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Kostrzewski US 2006/0023105 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Ullrich US 2011/0105103 A1 May 5, 2011
Bjorkengren US 2016/0179462 A1 June 23, 2016
VanBlon US 2018/0088969 A1 Mar. 29, 2018
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4–22 as follows:
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–13, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bjorkengren and VanBlon.
Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bjorkengren, VanBlon, and
Kostrzewski. Id. at 8–9.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5–10 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–6.4
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combined
teachings of Bjorkengren and VanBlon render claim 1 obvious. Appeal
Br. 2–6. In particular, Appellant argues that neither Bjorkengren nor

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
5
VanBlon teaches or suggests a processor providing data indicative of a voice
input to a remote server for processing only when both the voice input was
received and the user has addressed the intelligent personal assistant within a
predetermined time period, as recited in independent claim 1. Id. at 6, Reply
Br. 2–4. According to Appellant, VanBlon teaches activating an
instructional support mode when the user is gazing at the display and/or the
user has provided additional voice/touch input. Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing
VanBlon ¶¶ 79). However, Appellant argues that VanBlon’s voice input may
be acted upon by the server at any time without regard to whether or not the
user is gazing at the display, whereas the claim requires that processing of
user input occurs only when the user has addressed the personal assistant for
a predetermined time period. Id. at 8. Further, Appellant argues that
VanBlon’s disclosure of the assistant entering in a locked state when the
user has not interacted with it for a predetermined time period does not cure
the VanBlon’s failure to teach the disputed limitations because the disclosed
predetermined time merely relates to the time threshold before the assistant
enters in the locked state due to user’s inactivity therewith, and it is not a
requisite time period for the user to address the assistant before the server
can process the user’s voice input. Id. (citing VanBlon ¶ 59).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
The Examiner relies upon Bjorkengren for teaching a system
including an audio transducer for processing the user’s voice input when a
camera tracking the user’s gaze indicates that a particular automated device
has been selected. Final Act. 4 (citing Bjorkengren ¶¶ 21, 40). The Examiner
further relies upon VanBlon’s disclosure of processing a user’s voice input
when a camera indicates that the user is gazing at a selected device. Id.
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
6
(citing VanBlon ¶ 79). Additionally, the Examiner finds that VanBlon’s
disclosure of the assistant entering in a locked state when the user has not
interacted with the assistant for a predetermined time teaches the time limit
for detecting activation event (i.e., entering the activation support mode).
Ans. 10 (citing VanBlon ¶ 59). We do not agree with the Examiner.
The disputed limitation requires that sending input to a remote server
for processing only when both the voice input was received and the user has
addressed the assistant for a predetermined time period.
We agree with Appellant that the proposed combination of
Bjorkengren and VanBlon teaches, at best, executing the user’s voice input
when the user is gazing at the assistant without regard to a time duration.5
Appeal Br. 8. For example, VanBlon teaches using a predetermined time,
but only for the purpose of determining a time period of user inactivity
during which the assistant enters in a lock state, and during which the user
may continue to interact therewith. Therefore, VanBlon’s predetermined
time period of inactivity implies a time period during which the user is
neither gazing at the assistant nor providing input thereto. Even if the
assistant allows the user to interact therewith upon entering the locked state,
VanBlon is silent as to whether the assistant is able continue processing the

5 We note in passing that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
appreciate that VanBlon’s detected gaze event lasts an unspecified time
duration, and it is a prerequisite for the Assistant to execute a user’s voice
input. Therefore, setting such a time duration to a predetermined amount
before executing the user’s voice input would be within the routine skill of
the ordinary artisan. In the event of continued prosecution, we leave it to the
Examiner to determine whether such a combination of VanBlon’s teaching
with Bjorkengren renders the claim obvious. Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02.
Appeal 2020-003839
Application 15/475,528
7
user’s input commands. Consequently, on this record, we agree with
Appellant that the cited disclosure falls short of teaching or suggesting a
predetermined time period during which the assistant can continuously
process commands received from the user. Id.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Similarly, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 2–20, which also recite the disputed
limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–20.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–8,
11–13, 16–
18
103 Bjorkengren, VanBlon
1–3, 6–8,
11–13,
16–18
4, 5, 9, 10,
14, 15, 19,
20
103
Bjorkengren,
VanBlon,
Kostrzewski

4, 5, 9,
10, 14,
15, 19,
20
Overall
Outcome 1–20

REVERSED