DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s amendment dated 03/24/2025. The applicant(s) amended claims 1, 6, and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues, “Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim | recites “outputting a signal for an audible playback of the proposed modification,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.” (Remarks: pg. 6) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim limitation of outputting a signal for audible playback of a proposed modification appears to be insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The audible playback is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not meaningfully limit the claim scope. It is merely just user feedback of the proposed modification. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 101 Rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues, “Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, provides an “inventive concept,” and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities. For at least these reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and similarly claims 6 and 19 are directed to patent eligible subject matter.” (Remarks: pg. 7) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided any reasons as to how the claim limitations provide an inventive concept. Outputting a signal for audible playback of a proposed modification lacks significantly more than the abstract idea. A person can simply speak of a proposed modification and this would be audible heard by another person.
Regarding the Applicant's prior art-related arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments pertain to the newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) modifying text. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6, and 19 recite, in part, determine a proposed modification to text, wherein the proposed modification comprises a proposed ambiguity resolution, outputting the proposed modification, and accepting the proposed modification. These steps can be performed in the human mind by looking at a text document and thinking of changes to make to the text. The communications device is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 11-18 and 20-21 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peters (US 20070083366 A1) in view of Ballard et al. (US 7200555 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Peters teaches:
“determine a proposed modification to text, wherein the proposed modification comprises a proposed ambiguity resolution” (par. 0011; ‘In this way, the user gains an easy and effective access to modified text portions and/or potentially misinterpreted spoken commands and/or ambiguous text portions as well as other potential problems associated with a speech to text recognition.’; par. 0040; ‘Various suggestions for the modification of a highlighted text portion can be displayed by means of a suggestion list 410 appearing within the text window 402 or within the suggestion window 404.’);
“outputting [[a signal for an audible playback of]] the proposed modification” (par. 0040; ‘Various suggestions for the modification of a highlighted text portion can be displayed by means of a suggestion list 410 appearing within the text window 402 or within the suggestion window 404.’);
“accepting the proposed modification” (user’s decision, par. 0039; ‘According to the user's preferences, an automatic modification may be directly performed by the rule execution module 309 or may be performed according to a user's decision.’).
However, Peters does not expressly teach:
“outputting a signal for an audible playback of the proposed modification” (emphasis added)
Ballard teaches:
“outputting a signal for an audible playback of the proposed modification” (col. 10, lines 47-60; ‘Turning now to FIG. 5, in step 54, the Speech Correction Application 26 can audibly play back to the speaker a list of "correction candidates", i.e. a list of letters, words, or phrases that are close in pronunciation or spelling to the respective letter, word, or phrase selected for correction, as conventionally determined by the Speech Recognition Engine 22.’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Peters methods of modifying the interpretation of spoken commands by incorporating Ballard’s method of audibly playing back correction candidates in order to output a signal of audible playback of proposed modifications. The combination of prior art would provide a way of correcting misrecognized speech in a speech recognition application operating in a computer device having limited or no display. (Ballard: col. 4, lines 4-17)
Regarding claims 11 (dep. on claim 1), 15 (dep. on claim 6), and 20 (dep. on claim 19), the combination of Peters in view of Ballard further teaches:
“converting voice input to text” (Peters: par. 0034; ‘In the first step 100 speech is transformed to text.’).
Regarding claims 12 (dep. on claim 1) and 16 (dep. on claim 6), the combination of Peters in view of Ballard further teaches:
“wherein the determining and the accepting are initiated by at least one processor” (Peters: par. 0037; ‘The speech to text transformation system 302 comprises a speech to text transformation module 306, a rule match detector module 308, a rule execution module 309 as well as a graphical user interface 310.’).
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Ballard, further in view of Lewis et al. (US 20020002459 A1).
Regarding claims 13 (dep. on claim 11) and 17 (dep. on claim 15), Peters does not expressly teach audio transducer, as in:
“wherein the outputting and the converting are initiated by at least one audio transducer.”
In a similar field of endeavor (correcting text), Lewis teaches:
“wherein the outputting and the converting are initiated by at least one audio transducer” (par. 0036; ‘The system also includes a microphone 107 operatively connected to the computer system through suitable interface circuitry or "sound board" (not shown), a keyboard 105, and at least one user interface display unit 102 such as a video data terminal (VDT) operatively connected thereto.’ ‘Speakers 104, as well as an interface device, such as mouse 106, can also be provided with the system, but are not necessary for operation of the invention as described herein.’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to convert the natural speech taught by Peters (par. 0037) (in view of Ballard) using Lewis’s microphone and to output a suggested correction using the speakers of Peters. The combination would significantly improve dictation throughput in terms of correct words per minute. (Lewis: par. 0008)
Regarding claims 14 (dep. on claim 12), 18 (dep. on claim 16), and 21 (dep. on claim 19), the combination of Peters in view of Ballard and Lewis further teaches:
“outputting, by the at least one processor, a reason for the proposed modification” (Lewis: par. 0045; ‘The explanation preferably can be displayed in the work with marks control panel view 11 and can assist the user in determining whether to make a change to the marked word or phrase, or to ignore the mark.’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571) 272-7602. 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.
MARK . VILLENA
Examiner
Art Unit 2658
/MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658