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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: an amendment filed on 2/18/2026.
● Claims 21-40 are currently pending; claims 1-20 have been canceled.
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) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosley (US 8874429) in view of Patterson et al (US 20210311975).
Regarding claim 21, Crosley disclose a method, comprising:
receiving video (video input, fig. 2) using at least one processor of a content access device (client device, fig. 1) from a content provider system (server 103, fig. 1) device via a communication network (network as shown in fig. 1); receiving, using the at least one processor, first audio data (audio input, figs. 2, 5, abstract) of a first language (audio/video from first language, abstract, fig. 2, 5) corresponding to the video; translating the first audio data to second audio data of a second language (translating input audio into different language, abstract, figs. 2, 5, col. 1, line 45 to col. 2, line 10, refer to entire reference for more details with respect to translating from first language to second language) using the at least one processor; delaying presentation of the video for a time (delaying presentation time for video, abstract, figs.2, col. 1, line 60 to col. 2, line 10) estimated to account for a translation time of the first audio data using the at least one processor; and outputting (video output, figs. 1-2) the video with the second audio data using the at least one processor for local presentation (fig. 3) of the content from the content provider system device.
Crosley fails to expressly teach and/or suggest translation is performed locally at the client device.
Patterson, in the same field of endeavor for translation, teaches translation is performed locally (language translations can be performed remotely or locally, par. 68) at the client device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying language translation of Crosley to provide translation that can be performed locally at the client device as taught by Patterson because of a following reason: (●) offline accessibility; zero latency; data privacy and security by translating contents locally.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Crosley with Patterson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Crosley further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the delaying presentation of the video comprises buffering (buffering, col. 3, lines 55-67) the video.
Regarding claim 23, Crosley further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first audio data comprises text (figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 24, Crosley further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the second audio data comprises generated audio sound (generated audio sound, col. 3, lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 26, Crosley further discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising generated the generated audio sound using text-to-speech (text-to-speech, col. 4, lines 14-17) software.
Regarding claim 27, Crosley further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the delaying presentation of the video comprises synchronizing (synchronizing, col. 4,lines 20-35) the video with the second audio data.
Regarding claim 28 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claim 1 above; therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, further comprising sixth instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory storage medium and executable by the at least one processor to convert the first audio data to text (the audio component may be processed by the translator 143 to convert the audio data to text data using, for example, a speech recognition algorithm, col. 3, line 55-67).
Regarding claim 30, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, further comprising further comprising sixth instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory storage medium and executable by the at least one processor to select the second language based on a location (geographical location, col. 2, line 60 to col. 3, line 4).
Regarding claim 31, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, wherein the first audio data comprises closed captioning data (subtitles as shown in figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 32, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, wherein translating the first audio data to the second audio data comprises communicating with a translation server (server, col. 2, lines 22-60, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, wherein the second audio data comprises text (figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 34, Crosley further discloses the computer program product of claim 28, further comprising sixth instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory storage medium and executable by the at least one processor to buffer (col. 2, line 55-57) the video for the time.
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosley/Patterson as described in claims 21-24, 26-34 above, in view of Nassar et al (US 20230410817).
Regarding claim 25, Crosley fails to expressly teach and/or suggest generating audio voice fingerprint associated with the audio data.
Nassar, in the same field of audio processing, teaches a well-known example of generating voice fingerprint (voice fingerprint, abstract, figs. 3-4) with the audio data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying audio processing of Crosley to include methods/steps of generating voice fingerprint as taught by Nassar to provide technological improvements in the interactivity, functionality, and performance of interactive virtual assistant and/or the training, execution,, and performance of machine learning models or techniques for performing speaker recognition (par. 7 of Nassar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Crosley/Patterson with Nassar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Response to Arguments
● Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights