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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and localizing information, which falls under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim describes the process of using personal background data to determine the correct pronunciation of a name. This is a fundamental mental process that humans have performed for centuries. Simply automating a process that can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper is considered an abstract idea.
The claims fails to integrate this abstract idea into a practical application that moves it beyond the exception. The "identifying" and "collecting" steps are described at a high level of abstraction, focusing on the result (obtaining a pronunciation) rather than a specific technical improvement to how computers function. The server, processor, and database are used as mere tools to execute the logic. There is no indication that the claim improves the underlying technology of speech synthesis or database indexing.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in linguistics.
Claim 2, receiving text is a standard computer function and does not change the abstract nature of the request.
Claim 3, listing specific data points (like area codes or schools) is just collecting more information, which is an abstract activity.
Claim 4, sorting by "demographic information" is a mental process for categorizing people that humans have always done.
Claim 5, using a "full target name" is a conventional way to identify a person and lacks any technical innovation.
Claim 6, adding "family history" is simply narrowing the field of data being collected, which remains an abstract concept.
Claim 7, estimating origin is a linguistic mental exercise that does not require a specialized technical solution.
Claim 8, identifying a "language of origin" is a basic rule of human speech and not a technical improvement to computer hardware.
Claim 9, using "prior matches" is a mathematical/statistical concept (historical data analysis) that is inherently abstract.
Claim 10, displaying text phonetically is a routine presentation of information on a standard screen.
Claim 11, collecting "positive or negative feedback" is a well-known business practice for improving accuracy, not a technical invention.
Claim 13, storing a "text-based representation" is a standard way computers store data and offers nothing "significantly more."
Claim 14, storing an "audio recording" is a conventional use of a database that does not transform the abstract idea.
Claim 15, storing a "phonetic representation" is simply storing a specific type of data rather than improving how the computer works.
Claim 16, altering text" is a routine data manipulation step often performed by generic software.
Claim 17, basing decisions on "user preference" is a non-technical human decision-making process.
Claim 18, applying "machine learning" is the use of a mathematical algorithm to perform the same abstract task of identification.
Claim 19, verification through feedback is a human-centric activity that is not made patentable just by doing it on a processor.
Claim 20, displaying "alternative pronunciations" is merely providing more information to a user, which is the end goal of the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 12-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz et al. (WO 2009094415) in view of (Abuelsaad et al. (US 9,747,891).
Claim 1,
Broz teaches a system comprising: a computer server ([Fig. 1] computer processor with wireless network), including a processor, which receives a request for pronunciation of a target name associated with a specific person by a user device associated with the user ([Fig. 2] [step 210] user requests spoken name pronunciation (request sent to Application Server 110);
a database storing one or more name pronunciations for one or more names ([Fig. 1] Recorded Spoken Name Database 154 for storing an audio file containing the Directory Member's Recorded Spoken Name);
wherein the computer server collects personal background data associated with the specific person that is stored in or accessible via an administrator computer ([Fig. 1] [system 100] Application Server queries Directory Member Profile Database to obtain directory member information; profile DB contains member information (names, phone numbers, email etc.)) and
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz does not explicitly teach identifies a pronunciation of the target name associated with the specific person that includes a recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name, the recommended pronunciation being based on the collected personal background data associated with the specific person and wherein the computer server transmits the recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name to the user device associated with the user.
Abuelsaad teaches identifies a pronunciation of the target name associated with the specific person that includes a recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name, the recommended pronunciation being based on the collected personal background data associated with the specific person ([col. 5 lines 26-27] [col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 26] multiple pronunciations (N1-N5) developed for the queried name/characteristic; N1 returned as the recommended pronunciation; characteristic include cultural/gender/location) and
wherein the computer server transmits the recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name to the user device associated with the user ([col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 11] the audio file for the top-ranked pronunciation would be returned to the user device 200 as the recommended pronunciation).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Broz with teachings of Abuelsaad by modifying the system and metho for providing audible spoken name pronunciations as taught by Broz to include identifies a pronunciation of the target name associated with the specific person that includes a recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name, the recommended pronunciation being based on the collected personal background data associated with the specific person and wherein the computer server transmits the recommended pronunciation of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name to the user device associated with the user as taught by Abuelsaad for the benefit of presenting the most frequent common pronunciation of the common name to an end user as the recommended pronunciation (Abuelsaad [col. 1 lines 54-56]).
Claim 2,
Abuelsaad further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server receives the target name for which a request for pronunciation of the target name by the user as text from a user device ([col. 5 lines 18-32] query is submitted from user device 200 to the server; the query may contain the spelling of an individual’s name).
Claim 4,
Abuelsaad further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the recommended pronunciation is based on demographic information for the specific person in the collected personal data ([col. 2 lines 30-33] geographic location).
Claim 5,
Broz further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the demographic information is the full target name ([Background of the Invention] provide the full name).
Claim 12,
A method, comprising: receiving, by a processor, a request for pronunciation of a target name associated with a specific person by a user device associated with a user; collecting, by the processor, personal background data associated with the specific person that is stored in or accessible via an administrator computer; identifying, by the processor, a pronunciation of the target name associated with the specific person that includes a recommended pronunciation of the target name, the recommended pronunciation being based on the collected personal background data associated with the specific person; providing, by the processor, one or more alternative pronunciations to the recommended pronunciation for the target name based on the collected personal background data associated with the specific person associated with the target name; and transmitting the recommended pronunciation and one or more alternative secondary pronunciations of the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name to the user device associated with the user. (Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale)
Claim 13,
Abuelsaad further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the database includes a text-based representation of the target name ([col. 5 lines 18-32] spelling of an individual’s name).
Claim 14,
Broz further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the database includes an audio recording of the target name ([Detailed Description] [The voice Mail System 150] collected by the Voice Mail Processor 156 in a conventional manner and saved in the Recorded Spoken Name Database 154 in an audio file format).
Claim 15,
Abuelsaad further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the database includes a phonetic representation of the target name ([col. 3 lines 9-41] phonetic database with phonetic keys/spelling).
Claim 18,
Abuelsaad further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein identifying the recommended pronunciation for the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name includes applying machine learning to identify the likelihood that one or more of the pronunciations in the ranked list of pronunciation is preferred ([col. 4 lines 27-52] speech recognition technology).
Claim(s) 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz et al. (WO 2009094415) in view of (Abuelsaad et al. (US 9,747,891) and further in view of Felman (US 2019/0199761).
Claim 3,
Abuelsaad teaches wherein the server estimates a preferred pronunciation for the specific person based on the collected personal data (col. 6 lines 27-63] [Fig. 5] statistically ranked to provide a name pronunciation recommendation; recommended name pronunciation returned to the end user).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Abuelsaad does not explicitly teach, which includes a phone area code associated with the specific person, an address associated with the specific person, a place of birth of the specific person, social media information about the specific person, and a list of schools attended by the specific person.
Felman teaches which includes a phone area code associated with the specific person, an address associated with the specific person, a place of birth of the specific person, social media information about the specific person, and a list of schools attended by the specific person ([0027] contact information (mailing address); location information (birthplace); contract information (social media accounts); educational information (schools attended)).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Felman by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include which includes a phone area code associated with the specific person, an address associated with the specific person, a place of birth of the specific person, social media information about the specific person, and a list of schools attended by the specific person as taught by Felman for the benefit of determining that a disclosure condition has been met and, upon such determination, sharing the disclosure information with a second user; the operations performed may further include notifying the first user and/or the second user that the condition was met and that the disclosure information was shared (Felman [0012]).
Claim 7,
Abuelsaad further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the estimated preferred pronunciation of the target name is based on target name origin information (col. 5 lines 17-32] cultural origin may assist in identifying the pronunciation).
Claim 8,
Abuelsaad further teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the target name origin information includes a language of origin for the target name ([col. 2 lines 26-47] Spanish language pronunciation and English language pronunciation).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz et al. (WO 2009094415) in view of (Abuelsaad et al. (US 9,747,891) and further in view of Vavra et al. (US 2009/0319622).
Claim 6,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 5. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly tech wherein the demographic information includes family history information for the specific person.
Vavra teaches wherein the demographic information includes family history information for the specific person ([0002] [0024] family history can include a family tree and family history data container used to store personal and relationship information about each family member).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Vavra by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include wherein the demographic information includes family history information for the specific person as taught by Vavra for the benefit of having one family member would have a complete picture of a family's entire history (Vavra [0002]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz et al. (WO 2009094415) in view of (Abuelsaad et al. (US 9,747,891) in view of Felman (US 2019/0199761) and further in view of Naik (KR 20140136969).
Claim 9,
Broz, Abuelsaad and Felman teach all the limitations in claim 3. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz, Abuelsaad nor Felman explicitly teach wherein the estimated preferred pronunciation of the target name is based on one or more prior target pronunciation matches.
Naik teaches wherein the estimated preferred pronunciation of the target name is based on one or more prior target pronunciation matches ([Fig. 3] [step 1108] to determine usage data associated with one or more pronunciations associated with the name).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Naik by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include wherein the estimated preferred pronunciation of the target name is based on one or more prior target pronunciation matches as taught by Naik for the benefit of estimating the model pronunciation of names from different languages and cultures (Naik [Background Art]).
Claim 10,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach a user device, including a display which displays the recommended pronunciation of the target name transmitted from the computer server phonetically.
Naik teaches a display which displays the recommended pronunciation of the target name transmitted from the computer server phonetically ([display 700] [Fig. 7] display 700 a list containing one or more composed voice pronunciations of the name for selection; for example, instead of providing a set of user-selectable monosyllable components 704, 706, 708, the user interface 102 may assign a configured voice pronunciation comprising components 704, 706, 708 to a "yaf-stein- son ").
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Naik by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include a user device, including a display which displays the recommended pronunciation of the target name transmitted from the computer server phonetically as taught by Naik for the benefit of estimating the model pronunciation of names from different languages and cultures (Naik [Background Art]).
Claim 11,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 3. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach wherein the computer server further receives positive or negative feedback from the user based on the transmitted ranked list of pronunciations of the target name.
Naik teaches wherein the computer server further receives positive or negative feedback from the user based on the transmitted ranked list of pronunciations of the target name ([Fig. 5] [monosyllable component 504] arranged based on preference/popularity/frequency of use of certain name).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Naik by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include a user device, including wherein the computer server further receives positive or negative feedback from the user based on the transmitted ranked list of pronunciations of the target name as taught by Naik for the benefit of estimating the model pronunciation of names from different languages and cultures (Naik [Background Art]).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz et al. (WO 2009094415) in view of (Abuelsaad et al. (US 9,747,891) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2008/0208574).
Claim 16,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 12. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach wherein comparing the target name to one or more name pronunciations for one or more names stored in the database is performed on altered text representations of the target name.
Chen teaches wherein comparing the target name to one or more name pronunciations for one or more names stored in the database is performed on altered text representations of the target name ([0046] providing a word similar in pronunciation, or recording an audio file of the pronunciation; the method for editing the phoneme string or providing a word similar in pronunciation are illustratively the same for method 250 as for method 200).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Chen by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include wherein comparing the target name to one or more name pronunciations for one or more names stored in the database is performed on altered text representations of the target name as taught by Chen for the benefit of providing to the remote device of an audible representation of the word to be pronounced (Chen [Abstract]).
Claim 17,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 12. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach wherein identifying the recommended pronunciation for the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name by the user is based on one or more of a user preference, target name origin estimation, and prior target pronunciation matches.
Chen teaches wherein identifying the recommended pronunciation for the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name by the user is based on one or more of a user preference, target name origin estimation, and prior target pronunciation matches ([0033] to determine the nationality or language of the name provided by employing an algorithm within the database manager 14; the database manager 14 determines one or more possible locations of origin for the inputted name).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Chen by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include wherein identifying the recommended pronunciation for the target name received in the request for pronunciation of the target name by the user is based on one or more of a user preference, target name origin estimation, and prior target pronunciation matches as taught by Chen for the benefit of providing to the remote device of an audible representation of the word to be pronounced (Chen [Abstract]).
Claim 19,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 12. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach receiving, by the processor, positive or negative feedback on an accuracy of the recommended pronunciation of the target name.
Chen teaches receiving, by the processor, positive or negative feedback on an accuracy of the recommended pronunciation of the target name ([0037-0038] pronunciation is correct; pronunciation is incorrect).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Chen by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include receiving, by the processor, positive or negative feedback on an accuracy of the recommended pronunciation of the target name as taught by Chen for the benefit of providing to the remote device of an audible representation of the word to be pronounced (Chen [Abstract]).
Claim 20,
Broz and Abuelsaad teach all the limitations in claim 12. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Broz nor Abuelsaad explicitly teach displaying the recommended pronunciation and the one or more alternative pronunciations of the recommended pronunciation of the target name on a screen associated with a user device.
Chen teaches displaying the recommended pronunciation and the one or more alternative pronunciations of the recommended pronunciation of the target name on a screen associated with a user device ([0035] display listing five pronunciations).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Abuelsaad with teachings of Chen by modifying the name pronunciation recommendation as taught by Abuelsaad to include displaying the recommended pronunciation and the one or more alternative pronunciations of the recommended pronunciation of the target name on a screen associated with a user device as taught by Chen for the benefit of providing to the remote device of an audible representation of the word to be pronounced (Chen [Abstract]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2659