DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed on 09/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 8 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8 and 15 are objected because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: Since claim 6 depends on claim 1, the first line of claim 6 should start with “The converting method [A] of Claim 1”. Similarly, the first line of claim 8 should start with “The converting method [A] of Claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 15 recites “The text creation method [E] of Claim 3” should be rewritten as “The converting method [A] of Claim 3” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites a method comprising converting between an n-tuple and a document using a readable text and a text grammar, wherein the n-tuple comprises some language content and some information. The limitations of converting between the n-tuple and the document using a readable text and a text grammar, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Thus, the converting step may be performed by processes including converting some language content to a document using some text (without visible markup) and text grammar, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opination. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 further recites the readable text contain a computer technology known as markup, which is of a simpler and less adulterating type known as no visible markup and the text readable text conforms to a text grammar, which is a computer technology, wherein the readable text [I] appears substantially the same as the document [L] when both are rendered for display by computer technology. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that “readable text” is any text that is readable and contains no punctuations, which is of a simpler and less adulterating type known as no visible markup, and a person can read a text and interpret it whether or not the text conforms grammar. Even though “text grammar is a computer technology” is interpreted as being performed by a computer, and text and document are displayed by computer technology, wherein the computer is recited at a high level of generality and mounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Similarly, “the readable text contains a computer technology known as markup” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 further claim 1. Claims 2-15, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims 2-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 are device claims. Claims 16, 17, 18 and 19 contain similar limitations of claims (1, 9), 12, 13 and 7, respectively. Therefore, claims 16-19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is a device claim that contain similar limitations of claim 1 and 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 1 contains subject matter “wherein the readable text [I] appears substantially the same as the document [L] when both are rendered for display by computer technology”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Please verify.
Claims 2-15 further depend claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson et al. (Thomson), US Patent No. US 10,388,272 B1, and further in view of Mishra, US Patent No. US 11, 363,084 B1.
As to independent claim 1, Thomson discloses a converting method [A]; the converting method comprising:(i) converting, using a readable text [I] and a text grammar [J], from an n-tuple [K] to a document [L]; wherein the n-tuple [K] comprises some language content [M] and some additional information [N]; wherein the readable text[I] is configured with a computer technology known as markup; wherein the markup is of a simpler and less adulterating type known as no visible markup and wherein the readable text conforms to the text grammar [J] wherein the text grammar [J] is a computer technology (col. 49, line 55 – col. 50, line 2: the transcription unit 1014 includes an ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) system and various ASR models that may be used by the ASR system to generate transcriptions, wherein the transcription unit may be configured to convert communication session audio such as voice samples (first document) into a text transcription (a second document); col. 38, line 56 – col. 39, line 3, col. 47, lines 35-52: the ASR system might include a grammar engine (text grammar) to capitalize and punctuate, models (readable text) may be used in the ASR system to perform the process of generating a transcription of audio; Also see Figure 53, col. 180, lines 15-53: audio input (first document) is provided to ASR system, and the word recognizer 5804 may generate denormalized text (readable text) and provide denormalized text to the training set and to the normalizer; col. 19, lines 32-46]: transcriptions of audio to text can be any format such as XML; col. 181, lines 1-15: a caller may recite an address by saying “One twenty three Lake Shore Drive, Gary, Indiana.” (first document), the transcription may transcribe the audio as “123 Lake Shore Dr., Gary, IN.” (second document). The denormalizer may output “one twenty three lake shore drive gary Indiana” (in this example ignoring capitalization and punctuation) as the denormalized string, which contains no visible markup; col. 42, lines 4-22: output a string of words which may be analyzed by the grammar engine to determine which words should be capitalized and how to add punctuation),
wherein the readable text [I] appears substantially the same as the document [L] when both are rendered for display by computer technology (col. 58, line 49 – col. 59, line 21: a denormalize process may convert an address from “123 Lake Shore Dr.,” into “one twenty three lake shore drive”, which is substantially the same with “123 Lake Shore Dr.”.
As pointed out above that Thomson only teaches converting from a first document to a second document. Thomson, however, does not disclose converting between a first n-tuple and a document.
In the same field of endeavor, Mishra discloses providing a plurality of input contents and at least one content converter device for generating a plurality of output contents from the plurality of input content (Abstract). Mishra further discloses a processing module is configured to execute one or more algorithms such as speech to text algorithm, text to speech algorithm, language conversion algorithm, such as the processing module is configured to receive either audio input, text input, video input or a combination thereof, and it can produce an audio output, a text output, and a video output, and these outputs can be generated in any language using language conversion library files (col. 12, lines 42 – col. 13, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conversion of audio to text of Thomson’s system to include converting between an n-tuple and a document, as taught by Mishra for the purpose of creating a friendly user environment for people using different kinds of languages.
As to dependent claim 4, Thomson disclose discloses (i) a text encapsulation method [G]; the text encapsulation method comprising: (a) converting between the readable text [I] and an encapsulated text [P] using the text grammar [J]; wherein the encapsulated text [P] comprises: a verification result [Q] and a post-verification text [R] (col. 36, lines 45-60).
As to dependent claim 5, Thomson discloses (i) a text conversion method [H]; the text conversion method comprising: (a) converting between the a post-verification text [R} element of an encapsulated text [P] and the document [L] (col. 36, lines 45-60; col. 161, line 54 – col. 162, line 9).
As to dependent claim 6, Thomson discloses the readable text [I], obtained by the converting method [A] of claim 1; wherein the readable text [I] is an allowable text [W] (col. 8, lines 25-45).
As to dependent claim 7, Thomson discloses the readable text [T], obtained by the converting method [A] of Claim 1; wherein the readable text [I] comprises: a rigorous set of punctuation idioms [AG] (Figures 15-16 and col. 87, lines 1-22).
As to dependent claim 8, Thomson discloses the document [L] of Claim 1, obtained by the converting method [A] of Claim 1; wherein the readable text [I] is an allowable text [W] (col. 8, lines 25-45: trained models (readable text) are configured to recognize speech into audio and generate a transcription of the audio based on the recognized speech).
As to dependent claim 9, Thomson discloses the converting method [A] of Claim 1; wherein the document [L] of Claim 1 is compliant with a format [S] and wherein the format [S] is drawn from a set of formats [T]; wherein the set of formats [T] comprises: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Text Encoding Initiative (TEL), HyperText Markup Language (HTML), DOC, DOCX, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Portable Document Format (PDF) and XML Paper Specification (XPS) (Thomson discloses transcriptions of audio to text can be any formats such as XML (col. 19, lines 32-46).
As to dependent claim 10, Thomson discloses wherein the document [L] of Claim 1 is publishable using a medium [U] wherein the medium [U] is drawn from a set of mediums [V]: wherein the set of mediums [V] comprises: a book. & magazine, a journal. a newspaper, an article, and a web page (col. 250, line 58 – col. 252, line 3).
As to dependent claim 11, Thomson discloses wherein the readable text [I] consists of a multiset of characters [X] drawn from a limited set-of characters [Y] (col. 58, lines 49-63).
As to dependent claim 13, Thomson discloses wherein the text grammar [J] comprises: a-set of text grammar rules [AC]; wherein the set of text grammar rules [AC] is an improved computer technology; wherein the set of text grammar rules [AC] further comprises: a multiset of terminal and non-terminal symbols [AD]: wherein one or more of the multiset of terminal and non-terminal symbols [AD] is an encoded terminal or non-terminal symbol [AE] wherein the encoded terminal or non-terminal symbol [AE] is drawn from a set of text grammars [AF]: wherein the set of text grammars [AF] comprises: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Text Encoding Initiative (TEL), HyperText Markup Language (HTML), DOC, DOCX, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Portable Document Format (PDF) and XML Paper Specification (XPS) (col. 19, lines 32-46; col. 81 and 82, Table 6, part 6d).
As to dependent claim 14, Thomson discloses wherein the text grammar [J] is configured with a set of text grammar rules [AC] comprising: a rigorous set of punctuation idioms [AG] (Figures 15-16 and col. 87, lines 1-22).
As to dependent claim 15, Thomson discloses wherein the readable text (I] is an allowable text [W] (col. 8, lines 25-45: trained models (readable text) are configured to recognize speech into audio and generate a transcription of the audio based on the recognized speech).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson and Mishra as applied to claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15, and further in view of Isabel et al. (Isabel), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0344662.
As to dependent claim 2, Thomson discloses corrections of errors may be provided for correcting transcription converted from audio input (col. 16, lines 41-54). Thomson, however, does not disclose (i) an orthographic method [D]: the orthographic method comprising: (a) converting between the n-tuple [K] of Claim 1 and some pointed annotated written language [O] using the text grammar [J].
In the same field of endeavor, Isabel discloses technologies for converting handwritten ink input (pointed annotated written language) to text annotations (Abstract). Isabel further discloses the ink input may be converted to a text annotation based on a context of the ink input and a grammar and proof-reading analysis (Abstract). Isabel further discloses in Figure 2 and paragraph [0023]-[0026] to show an example of content annotated with hand written ink input in a document converted into text annotations on the document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conversion of audio to text of Thomson’s system to include (i) an orthographic method [D]: the orthographic method comprising: (a) converting between the n-tuple [K] of Claim 1 and some pointed annotated written language [O] using the text grammar [J], as taught by Isabel for the purpose of helping user to convert hand written notes to text annotations in a document.
As to dependent claim 3, Thomson discloses corrections of errors may be provided for correcting transcription converted from audio input (col. 16, lines 41-54). Thomson, however, does not disclose (i) a text creation method [E]: the text creation method [E] comprising: (a) converting between some pointed annotated written language [O] and the readable text [I] using the text grammar [J] and a marking method [F].
In the same field of endeavor, Isabel discloses technologies for converting handwritten ink input (pointed annotated written language) to text annotations (Abstract). Isabel further discloses the ink input may be converted to a text annotation based on a context of the ink input and a grammar and proof-reading analysis (Abstract). Isabel further discloses in Figure 2 and paragraph [0023]-[0026] to show an example of content annotated with hand written ink input in a document converted into text annotations on the document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conversion of audio to text of Thomson’s system to include (i) a text creation method [E]: the text creation method [E] comprising: (a) converting between some pointed annotated written language [O] and the readable text [I] using the text grammar [J] and a marking method [F], as taught by Isabel for the purpose of helping user to convert hand written notes to text annotations in a document.
Claims 16, 18-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson et al. (Thomson), US Patent No. US 10,388,272 B1, and further in view of Mishra, US Patent No. US 11, 363,084 B1, and further in view of Orr et al. (Orr), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0196013 A1.
As to independent claim 16, Thomson discloses a computer-readable memory device |B] with a multiset of instructions [AH], which is a net empty multiset, stored thereon; the multiset of instructions [AH] comprising: (i) a method of converting, using a readable text [I] and a text grammar [J], from an n-tuple [K] to a document [L] (col. 49, line 55 – col. 50, line 2: the transcription unit 1014 includes an ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) system and various ASR models that may be used by the ASR system to generate transcriptions, wherein the transcription unit may be configured to convert communication session audio such as voice samples (n-tuple) into a text transcription (a document); col. 38, line 56 – col. 39, line 3, col. 47, lines 35-52: the ASR system might include a grammar engine (text grammar) to capitalize and punctuate, models (readable text) may be used in the ASR system to perform the process of generating a transcription of audio): wherein the document [L] is compliant with a format [S]; wherein the format [S] is drawn from a set of formats [T]: wherein the set of formats [T] comprises: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Text Encoding Initiative (TEL), HyperText Markup Language (HTML), DOC, DOCX, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Portable Document Format (PDF) and XML Paper Specification (XPS), (Thomson discloses transcriptions of audio to text can be any formats such as XML (col. 19, lines 32-46); Also see Figure 53, col. 180, lines 15-53: audio input (first document) is provided to ASR system, and the word recognizer 5804 may generate denormalized text (readable text) and provide denormalized text to the training set and to the normalizer; col. 181, lines 1-15: a caller may recite an address by saying “One twenty three Lake Shore Drive, Gary, Indiana.” (first document), the transcription may transcribe the audio as “123 Lake Shore Dr., Gary, IN.” (second document). The denormalizer may output “one twenty three lake shore drive gary Indiana” (in this example ignoring capitalization and punctuation) as the denormalized string, which contains no visible markup);
wherein the computer-readable memory device [B] is a non-transitory; wherein the computer-readable memory device [B] has any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon (col. 32, lines 26-38: the method may be performed based on the execution of instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media)
As pointed out above that Thomson only teaches converting from a first document to a second document. Thomson, however, does not disclose converting between a first document and a second document.
In the same field of endeavor, Mishra discloses providing a plurality of input contents and at least one content converter device for generating a plurality of output contents from the plurality of input content (Abstract). Mishra further discloses a processing module is configured to execute one or more algorithms such as speech to text algorithm, text to speech algorithm, language conversion algorithm, such as the processing module is configured to receive either audio input, text input, video input or a combination thereof, and it can produce an audio output, a text output, and a video output, and these outputs can be generated in any language using language conversion library files (col. 12, lines 42 – col. 13, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conversion of audio to text of Thomson’s system to include converting between a first document and a second document, as taught by Mishra for the purpose of creating a friendly user environment for people using different kinds of languages.
Thomson and Mishra, however do not disclose wherein any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon is readily readable as part of a core file using a utility conforming to a specification known as od.
In the same field of endeavor, Orr discloses in Figure 4 and paragraph [0058] a sequence of bytes that represents text data is displayed as a memory dump 408 that shows a portion of the bytes (e.g.,512 bytes) and allows a user to scroll through the complete range of bytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Thomson and Mishra to include wherein any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon is readily readable as part of a core file using a utility conforming to a specification known as od, as taught by Orr for the purpose of providing “dump” data in various formats.
As to dependent claim 18, Thomson discloses wherein the text grammar [J] comprises: a set of text grammar rules [AC]: wherein the set of text grammar rules [AC] further comprises: a multiset of terminal and non-terminal symbols [AD]: wherein one or more of the multiset of terminal and non-terminal symbols [AD] is an encoded terminal or non-terminal symbol [AE]; wherein the encoded terminal or non-terminal symbol [AE] is drawn from a set of text grammars [AF]; wherein the set of text grammars [AF] comprises: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Text Encoding Initiative (TEL), HyperText Markup Language (HTML), DOC, DOCX, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Portable Document Format (PDF) and XML Paper Specification (XPS) (col. 19, lines 32-46; col. 81 and 82, Table 6, part 6d).
As to dependent claim 19, Thomson discloses wherein the text grammar [J] is configured with a set of text grammar rules [AC] comprising: a rigorous set of punctuation idioms [AG] (Figures 15-16 and col. 87, lines 1-22).
As to independent claim 20, Thomson discloses a computing device [C]; the computing device [C] comprising:
(i) the computer-readable memory device [B] with a multiset of instructions [AH], which is a not empty multiset, stored thereon of Claim 16 (col. 21 and col. 22, Table 1, part 11: the communication session detector may include an ASR system and a memory storage device); and
(ii) a processor [AI] coupled to the computer-readable memory device [B] with the multiset of instructions [AH] stored thereon of Claim 16, the processor [AI] executing a reader application [AJ] with the multiset of instructions [AH] stored with the computer-readable memory device [B] with the multiset of instructions [AH] stored thereon of Claim 16, wherein the reader application [AJ] is configured to perform the method of (col. 98, line 66 – col. 99, line 17: implementing a processor executing instructions on a device participating in a communication session);
(a) converting, using a readable text [I] and a text grammar [J], from an n-tuple [K] to a document [L], wherein the document [L] is compliant with a format [S] drawn from a set of formats [T]: wherein the set of formats [T] comprises: Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Text Encoding Initiative (TEL), HyperText Markup Language (HTML), DOC, DOCX, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Portable Document Format (PDF) and XML Paper Specification (XPS) (col. 49, line 55 – col. 50, line 2: the transcription unit 1014 includes an ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) system and various ASR models that may be used by the ASR system to generate transcriptions, wherein the transcription unit may be configured to convert communication session audio such as voice samples (n-tuple) into a text transcription (a document); col. 38, line 56 – col. 39, line 3, col. 47, lines 35-52: the ASR system might include a grammar engine (text grammar) to capitalize and punctuate, models (readable text) may be used in the ASR system to perform the process of generating a transcription of audio): wherein the document [L] is compliant with a format [S]; wherein the format [S] is drawn from a set of formats [T]: wherein the set of formats [T] comprises: SGML, XML, TEI, HTML, DOC, DOCX, ODX., PDF and XPS (Thomson discloses transcriptions of audio to text can be any formats such as XML (col. 19, lines 32-46); Also see Figure 53, col. 180, lines 15-53: audio input (first document) is provided to ASR system, and the word recognizer 5804 may generate denormalized text (readable text) and provide denormalized text to the training set and to the normalizer; col. 181, lines 1-15: a caller may recite an address by saying “One twenty three Lake Shore Drive, Gary, Indiana.” (first document), the transcription may transcribe the audio as “123 Lake Shore Dr., Gary, IN.” (second document). The denormalizer may output “one twenty three lake shore drive gary Indiana” (in this example ignoring capitalization and punctuation) as the denormalized string, which contains no visible markup).
wherein the computer-readable memory device [B] is a non-transitory; wherein the computer-readable memory device [B] has any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon (col. 32, lines 26-38: the method may be performed based on the execution of instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media)
As pointed out above that Thomson only teaches converting from a first document to a second document. Thomson, however, does not disclose converting between a first document and a second document.
In the same field of endeavor, Mishra discloses providing a plurality of input contents and at least one content converter device for generating a plurality of output contents from the plurality of input content (Abstract). Mishra further discloses a processing module is configured to execute one or more algorithms such as speech to text algorithm, text to speech algorithm, language conversion algorithm, such as the processing module is configured to receive either audio input, text input, video input or a combination thereof, and it can produce an audio output, a text output, and a video output, and these outputs can be generated in any language using language conversion library files (col. 12, lines 42 – col. 13, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conversion of audio to text of Thomson’s system to include converting between a first document and a second document, as taught by Mishra for the purpose of creating a friendly user environment for people using different kinds of languages.
Thomson and Mishra, however do not disclose wherein any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon is readily readable as part of a core file using a utility conforming to a specification known as od.
In the same field of endeavor, Orr discloses in Figure 4 and paragraph [0058] a sequence of bytes that represents text data is displayed as a memory dump 408 that shows a portion of the bytes (e.g.,512 bytes) and allows a user to scroll through the complete range of bytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Thomson and Mishra to include wherein any portion of the readable text [I] stored thereon is readily readable as part of a core file using a utility conforming to a specification known as od, as taught by Orr for the purpose of providing “dump” data in various formats.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson and Mishra as applied to claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15, and further in view of Pi Farias, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0260814 A1.
As to dependent claim 12, Thomson, however, does not disclose wherein the text grammar [J] is one of more of: a context free grammar [Z]; or comprising: a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as lex [AA], and a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as YACC [AB].
In the same file of endeavor, Pi Farias discloses a grammar maybe developed by using development tools such as lex, yacc, XML and/or the like (paragraphs [0746], [0749]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Thomson to include wherein the text grammar [J] is one of more of: a context free grammar [Z]; or comprising: a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as lex [AA], and a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as YACC [AB], as taught by Pi Farias. The grammar using tools of lex and/or yacc allows for grammar generation and parsing capabilities.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson, Mishra and Orr as applied to claims 16, 18-19 and 20 above, and further in view of Pi Farias, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0260814 A1.
As to dependent claim 17, Thomson, however, does not disclose wherein the text grammar [J] is one of more of: a context free grammar [Z]; or comprising: a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as lex [AA], and a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as YACC [AB].
In the same file of endeavor, Pi Farias discloses a grammar maybe developed by using development tools such as lex, yacc, XML and/or the like (paragraphs [0746], [0749]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Thomson to include wherein the text grammar [J] is one of more of: a context free grammar [Z]; or comprising: a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as lex [AA], and a description for the utility conforming to a specification known as YACC [AB], as taught by Pi Farias. The grammar using tools of lex and/or yacc allows for grammar generation and parsing capabilities.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues in substance that
“Markup” – not directed to an abstract idea – instead “markup”, following the prior art in Litteken, Barker, brooks and others, is an advancement in computer technology directed to text encoding to facilitate computer text processing.
In reply to this argument, Examiner disagrees because Applicant points out a few US Patent cases such as Litteken (US Patent No. 4,710,885), Barker et al.(US Patent No. 5,130,924), and Brooks et al. (US Patent No. 4,992,972), which recite/claim markup language, Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), and/or “generalized markup language” (GML). However, the Office has changed the rules regarding “Patent subject matter eligibility” as if Examiner pointed out in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 above.
“markup”, following ADSA, Enfish and others, is an advancement in computer directed to text encoding to facilitate computer text processing and cited 15 different court cases. As mentioned above in response to argument A, he Office has changed the rules regarding “Patent subject matter eligibility”, and these court cases are no longer applied to “Patent subject matter eligibility”.
Misinterpretation of “readable text”.
In reply to argument C, Claim 1 recites “wherein the readable text [I] is configured with a computer technology known as markup; wherein the markup is on a simpler and less adulterating type known as no visible markup and wherein the readable text [I] conforms to the text grammar”, which is interpreted as “text without markup/punctuation but understandable”. In this case, Thomson discloses in col. 49, line 55 – col. 50, line 2: the transcription unit 1014 includes an ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) system and various ASR models that may be used by the ASR system to generate transcriptions, wherein the transcription unit may be configured to convert communication session audio such as voice samples (first document) into a text transcription (a second document); col. 38, line 56 – col. 39, line 3, col. 47, lines 35-52: the ASR system might include a grammar engine (text grammar) to capitalize and punctuate, models (readable text) may be used in the ASR system to perform the process of generating a transcription of audio; Also see Figure 53, col. 180, lines 15-53: audio input (first document) is provided to ASR system, and the word recognizer 5804 may generate denormalized text (readable text) and provide denormalized text to the training set and to the normalizer; col. 19, lines 32-46]: transcriptions of audio to text can be any format such as XML; col. 181, lines 1-15: a caller may recite an address by saying “One twenty three Lake Shore Drive, Gary, Indiana.” (first document), the transcription may transcribe the audio as “123 Lake Shore Dr., Gary, IN.” (second document). The denormalizer may output “one twenty three lake shore drive gary Indiana” (in this example ignoring capitalization and punctuation) as the denormalized string, which contains no visible markup; col. 42, lines 4-22: output a string of words which may be analyzed by the grammar engine to determine which words should be capitalized and how to add punctuation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2177