Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2021

2020004289 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
15/378,920 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