Obviousness

I am unable to conduct a detailed obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 11087385 based on the provided prior art references (U.S. Patent No. 8,639,520 (Grinberg), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0179836 (Panciera), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109247 (Heckerman)). My attempts to retrieve the full text or abstracts of these specific prior art documents from Google Patents or other public patent databases through direct search queries have not yielded the necessary content for a thorough analysis. Without access to the specific details of these prior art references, I cannot confidently identify combinations of references or articulate the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have to combine them.

To perform an obviousness analysis, the following steps would typically be taken, if the content of the prior art were available:

1. Identify the Scope and Content of the Prior Art: This involves thoroughly reviewing each cited prior art reference to understand what it teaches. For this task, I would need to read the abstracts, specifications, and claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,639,520 (Grinberg), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0179836 (Panciera), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109247 (Heckerman).

2. Ascertain the Differences Between the Claimed Invention and the Prior Art: Each independent claim of US patent 11087385 (Claims 1, 10, and 17) would be broken down into its individual elements. These elements would then be compared feature-by-feature against the disclosures of the prior art references to determine which elements are present in the prior art and which, if any, are novel.

3. Determine the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art: For US 11087385, a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would likely be an individual with a background in natural language processing, speech recognition, e-commerce systems, and software development, capable of implementing voice-controlled applications and integrating them with online purchasing functionalities.

4. Evaluate Whether the Differences Would Have Been Obvious to a POSITA: This is the core of the obviousness analysis. It involves constructing a hypothetical motivation to combine various prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.

   • Motivation to Combine: For each claim, if not fully taught by a single piece of prior art, I would seek to combine two or more references. The motivation to combine could stem from:

     • Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation (TSM) Test: Whether the prior art itself suggests combining the elements.
     • Common Sense/General Knowledge: Whether a POSITA would recognize that combining elements would be obvious based on general knowledge in the field.
     • Known Problem and Solution: Whether the claimed invention is a known solution to a known problem addressed by combining prior art elements.
     • Predictable Results: Whether combining the elements would lead to a predictable result.

   • Example Application (if prior art content were available):

     • For Independent Claim 1 (Method of voice commerce without further input): If, for instance, Grinberg (hypothetically) taught voice recognition for interacting with a system and Panciera (hypothetically) taught an e-commerce system with pre-saved payment and shipping information, a POSITA might be motivated to combine these to provide a more convenient user experience for online shopping. The motivation would be to streamline the purchase process by leveraging voice commands to initiate a transaction using stored user preferences, thereby reducing manual input, especially on mobile devices with small screens as highlighted in the background of US 11087385.
     • For Independent Claim 17 (Method with user confirmation): If the prior art combination above made a purchase without confirmation, and Heckerman (hypothetically) taught adding a confirmation step to automated transactions for security or user verification, a POSITA would be motivated to add such a confirmation step to the voice commerce system for similar reasons (e.g., preventing accidental purchases, ensuring accuracy), while still maintaining a streamlined voice-based interaction.

Without the actual content of the cited prior art, any specific analysis of combinations and motivations would be speculative. Therefore, I cannot provide the requested detailed obviousness analysis at this time.