Google Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 20212020004289 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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. 15/378,920 12/14/2016 Vikram Aggarwal ZS202-17652 8078 105132 7590 08/30/2021 Middleton Reutlinger (Google LLC) 401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2600 Louisville, KY 40202 EXAMINER SONIFRANK, RICHA MISHRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2021 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): SHigdon@MiddletonLaw.com USPTOmail@middletonlaw.com USPTOmail@middreut.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VIKRAM AGGARWAL and BARNABY JAMES ____________________ Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,9201 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 5–9, 11–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is a method and apparatus for recording, organizing, and making available audio files. Audio content is captured and stored responsive to a first user providing input that he or she intends to 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Google LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,920 2 record such audio content. The stored audio content is associated with bibliographic words or phrases. In response to voice input from a subsequent user, the inventive system determines characteristics of that voice input, including determining whether said subsequent user is a child. If the subsequent user is determined to be a child, search results are provided that are biased toward audio files recorded by said first user and intended for one or more child users. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 82. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: in response to receiving an input from a first user indicating that the first user intends to record audio content targeted towards one or more children, causing capture and storage of audio content in a library of one or more recorded audio files; receiving input from the first user indicating at least one bibliographic word or phrase that identifies the audio content; associating the stored audio content with the at least one bibliographic word or phrase in the library of one or more recorded audio files; receiving a voice input from a subsequent user; analyzing characteristics of the voice input; detecting one or more characteristics of the voice input; determining, based on the detected one or more characteristics, that the subsequent user is a child; in response to determining that the subsequent user is a child, biasing speech recognition in respect of the voice input towards recognition of one or more bibliographic words or phrases associated with one or more stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children, wherein the one or more bibliographic words or phrases include the at least one identifier; Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,920 3 recognizing, based on the biased speech recognition, the at least one bibliographic word or phrase in the voice input; searching the library based on the recognized at least one bibliographic word or phrase to locate the stored audio content; and causing playback of the stored audio content The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Millman et al. (“Millman”) US 2008/0140413 A1 June 12, 2008 Hirsch et al. (“Hirsch”) US 2014/0109046 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 Jarvis et al. (“Jarvis”) US 2017/0242657 A1 Aug. 24, 2017 Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 11–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Millman and Jarvis. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Millman, Jarvis, and Hirsch. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 12, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 22, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 24, 2020) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Millman and Jarvis teach or suggest, in response to determining that a subsequent user is a child, biasing speech recognition towards recognition of bibliographic words or phrases associated with one or more stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children? Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,920 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 11–17, 19, and 20 Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, in response to determining that a subsequent user is a child, biasing speech recognition towards recognition of bibliographic words or phrases associated with one or more stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children. Independent claims 6 and 20 recite analogous limitations. The Examiner finds that Millman does not teach, in response to determining that the subsequent user is a child, “biasing speech recognition in respect of the voice input towards recognition of one or more bibliographic words or phrases associated with one or more stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children.” The Examiner cites Jarvis as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 5–6, citing Jarvis ¶¶ 18, 24, 25. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited portion of Jarvis supplies the teaching missing from Millman. The Examiner is correct that Jarvis teaches determining whether a registered user is speaking, and that registered user information may include the age of the user, which would allow Jarvis to determine whether the user is a child. Jarvis ¶¶ 18, 24, 25. Jarvis does suggest that such identification of the user as a child would enable its system to apply parental control settings or other restrictions that would prohibit a child user from accessing certain content. Id. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the cited portion of Jarvis lacks a teaching or suggestion of biasing speech recognition towards recognition of one or more words or phrases associated with stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children. Appeal Br. 16. In the absence Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,920 5 of a teaching or suggestion concerning this specific limitation of the independent claims, we find that the combination of Millman and Jarvis fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of the independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 5– 7, 9, 11–17, 19, and 20 over Millman and Jarvis. Claim 8 We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 6, from which claim 8 depends, supra. The Examiner does not find that Hirsch cures the deficiencies we have identified in the combination of Millman and Jarvis. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 8, then, for the same reasons given with respect to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6. CONCLUSION The combination of Millman and Jarvis does not teach or suggest, in response to determining that a subsequent user is a child, biasing speech recognition towards recognition of bibliographic words or phrases associated with one or more stored audio files in the library that were recorded for one or more children. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–7, 9, 11– 17, 19, 20 103 Millman, Jarvis 1, 5–7, 9, 11– 17, 19, 20 8 103 Millman, Jarvis, Hirsch 8 Overall Outcome 1, 5–9, 11– 17, 19, 20 Appeal 2020-004289 Application 15/378,920 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–9, 11–17, 19, and 20 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation