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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bamberger results in an improper combinations because as stated in MPEP 2143.01(V), "If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)."
However Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant interprets “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” as akin to “resulting in no changes to output.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the MPEP focuses on “intended purposes,” the broader intent of the prior art needs to be considered, rather than conduction a purely mechanical result.
Nelson is related to handling transcriptions requests, and in particular multiple transcription request. Bamberger selects one of at least two requests for transcriptions.
However, Applicant neglects the context of Bamberger. Specifically that Bamberger is not looking to negate valid requests, but rather is de-duplicating requests made via a voice command that have been duplicated erroneously.
As such, the intended purposes of Bamberger does not modify Gordon in an unsatisfactory manner as it introduces a potential error and then implements technique for remedying such an error. This would be akin to saying that an auto correct function modifies a user keypad function as being “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
Second, Applicant argues that Bamberger results in an improper combinations because as stated in MPEP 2143.01(VI), "If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959)".
For similar reasons as noted above, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The principle of operation of Nelson is that for each proper request for translation, a translation is made, wherein Nelson presumes only proper requests for translations.
Bamberger does not change this principle, but rather checks for an improper requests, i.e. ones erroneously duplicated, and removing them so only proper request remain.
Additionally, Examiner notes that Bamberger would not change the principle of Nelson nor render Nelson unsatisfactory for purpose, as the principle and purpose of Nelson is the resulting translation. As Bamberger results in the necessary translation to provide upon request(s) for a transcription, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Finally, Examiner notes the claims only recite “selecting only one of the first and second audio streams for transcription.” However, this does not limit there to only being a single transcription, in merely requires selection of one of the first and second audio streams (Examiner notes that “for transcription” is an intended use statement”).
As such, the selection of Bamberger and the transcription of Nelson are separate processes that can mutually exist and function as the claim is silent to how the transcription process is performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2. Claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 20190108221 A1) in view of Bamberger et al. (US 11295743 B1), Korte et al. (US 20190342594 A1) and Dingler et al. (US 20100228546 A1).
Claim 1 Nelson teaches a method for transcription of an audio stream comprising:
receiving a request for transcription of a first audio stream from a first device; (FIG.11, ¶0278-¶0219, requesting a first transcription 1112 for audio data as it is streamed from a first device requestor 1110) and
receiving a request for transcription of a second audio stream from a second device. (FIG. 11, ¶0260, requesting a first transcription 1122 from a second requestor 1120)
However, Nelson does not explicitly teach determining that the first and second audio streams are the same by determining at least one of a call ID, a source ID, and a timestamp of the first and second audio streams are the same for each audio stream;
selecting only one of the first and second audio streams for transcription; and requesting transcription of the selected audio stream, wherein a transcription fee is charged for only the selected audio stream.
From a related technology, Bamberger teaches determining that the first and second audio streams are the same; (Col. 49, Lines 57-58, inferring that received audio data corresponds to the same utterance, i.e. the audio streams are the same) and
selecting only one of the first and second audio streams. (Col. 49, Lines 48-67, de-duplicating additional requests from one of the audio streams, i.e. from audio detected from either first device 110a(1) or second device 110a(2), Col. 50, Lines 1-22, wherein captured user speech comprises an audio stream)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nelson to incorporate the analytical tools implements within Bamberger that identifies duplicated audio streams in order to more effectively manage network data and resources.
However, Nelson in view of Bamberger does not explicitly teach determining at least one of a call ID, a source ID, and a timestamp of the first and second audio streams are the same for each audio stream;
and wherein a transcription fee is charged for only the selected audio stream.
From a related technology, Korte teaches determining that the first and second audio streams are the same by determining at least one of a call ID, a source ID, and a timestamp of the first and second audio streams are the same for each audio stream. (Korte, ¶0035, FIG. 2, step 200, ¶0210-¶0215, determining if two audio streams are identical; ¶0094, wherein determining that the audio streams are the same comprises determining fingerprints for each audio frame, wherein a frame of the audio stream comprises a timestamp)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of audio processing described in Nelson in view of Bamberger to further incorporate techniques for identifying identical audio streams as described in Korte to more efficiently utilize network resources by identifying identical requests.
However, Nelson in view of Bamberger and Korte does not explicitly teach requesting transcription of the selected audio stream, wherein a transcription fee is charged for only the selected audio stream.
From a related technology, Dingler teaches requesting transcription of a selected audio stream, wherein a transcription fee is charged for only the selected audio stream. (¶0047, a user requesting a transcript and being charged a fee for the requested transcript)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nelson in view of Bamberger and Korte in order to more efficiently realized network resources and assigned fees appropriately.
Claim 7 Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler teaches Claim 1, and further teaches further comprising:
receiving a request (Bamberger, Col. 6, Lines 1-5, receiving utterances from a third device) for transcription of a third audio stream from a third device; (Examiner notes that “for transcription of a first audio stream from a first device” comprises an intended use statement and does not have patentable weight)
determining that the third audio stream is the same as the first and second audio stream; (Korte, ¶0035, FIG. 2, step 200, ¶0210-¶0215, determining whether an audio stream is identical to another audio stream) and
selecting at least two of the first, second, and third audio streams for transcription. (Bamberger, Col. 49, Lines 48-67, de-duplicating additional requests from one of the audio streams, i.e. from audio detected from either first device 110a(1) or second device 110a(2), or another device, Col. 50, Lines 1-22, wherein captured user speech comprises an audio stream)
Claims 8 and 14 are taught by Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler as described for Claims 1 and 7 respectively.
Claim 15 is taught by Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler as described for Claims 1.
3. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 20190108221 A1) in view of Bamberger et al. (US 11295743 B1), Korte et al. (US 20190342594 A1) and Dingler et al. (US 20100228546 A1) and in further view of Maury et al. (20220393898).
Claim 2 Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach sending the transcription of the selected audio stream to both the first and second device.
From a related technology, Maury teaches sending a transcription of a selected audio stream to both a first and second device. (Maury, ¶0033, providing a transcription to each of the electronic devices)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler to incorporate the transcription response handling taught by Maury in order to more efficiently handle requests from multiple devices to better manage network resources.
Claims 9 and 16 are taught by Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte, Dingler and Maury as described for Claim 2.
4. Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 20190108221 A1) in view of Bamberger et al. (US 11295743 B1), Korte et al. (US 20190342594 A1) and Dingler et al. (US 20100228546 A1) and in further view of Kraegeloh et al. (US 20210243491 A1).
Claim 4 Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein selecting one of the first and second audio streams further comprises:
requesting network parameters from the first and second device; and
selecting the audio stream from the device with the most favorable network parameters.
From a related technology Kraegeloh teaches requesting network parameters from the first and second device; (¶0045, requesting latency span information for a device) and
selecting an audio stream from the device with the most favorable network parameters. (¶0045, selecting an audio stream based upon the best latency span information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte and Dingler to further the teachings of Kraegeloh that incorporate device characteristic when analyzing audio streams in order to more effectively utilize network resources
Claim 5 Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte, Dingler and Kraegoloh teaches wherein the network parameters include at least one of jitter, packet loss, and latency. (Kraegeloh, ¶0045, requesting latency span information for a device)
Claim 6 Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte, Dingler Kraegoloh teaches periodically requesting network parameters from the first and second device; (Kraegoloh, ¶0045, requesting latency span information for a device iteratively) and
repeating the step of selecting the audio stream from the device with the most favorable network parameters. (Kraegoloh, ¶0045, selecting an audio stream based upon the best latency span information)
Claims 11-13 is taught by Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte, Dingler and Kraegoloh as described for Claims 4-6 respectively.
Claims 18-20 is taught by Nelson in view of Bamberger, Korte, Dingler and Kraegoloh as described for Claims 4-6 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444