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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending. Claim 2 has been presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0139373) in view of Shibui et al. (Japanese Pub. No. JP2010032861A) further in view of Kanungo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0120131).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, with respect to Figures 1-5, Weisz teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to:
obtain speech data (abstract; fig.3, steps 302, 304; paragraphs 0040-0041);
detect, from a speech represented by the speech data, an utterance section in which an utterance is made (fig.3, steps 302, 304; paragraphs 0040-0041);
determine whether a value, indicating the number of times a user has spoken at least a portion of the utterance and at least a corresponding portion of the subsequent utterance, satisfies one or more further condition (fig.4; paragraphs 0051, 0072) and the ASR model for outputting a candidate text [i.e., candidate] for training data (fig.3, fig.4; paragraphs 0072-0073); and
output a content of at least a part of the utterance in the utterance section as the candidate for the training data, the at least the part of the utterance being determined to satisfy the one or more condition (fig.4, step 408; paragraphs 0051-0052, 0071-0072). the training data being data for machine learning
However, Weisz does not specifically teach determining whether the utterance in the utterance section satisfies one or more condition preset for outputting data. Shibui teaches determining whether the utterance in the utterance section satisfies one or more condition preset for outputting data (first five paragraphs under “TECH SOLUTION”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz to incorporate the feature of determining whether the utterance in the utterance section satisfies one or more condition preset for outputting data in Weisz’s invention as taught by Shibui. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a particular training apparatus that determines whether or not a voice is easy for a person to understand and improves a particular technology for voice.
Weisz further does not specifically teach outputting a screen to display the content of the at least the part of the utterance as the candidate for the training data for machine learning. Shibui teaches teach outputting a screen to display the content of the at least the part of the utterance as the candidate for the training data (last paragraph under “TECH SOLUTION” and last paragraph under “ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS”) whereas Kanungo teaches the training data for machine learning (abstract; paragraphs 0029, 0036). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz to incorporate the feature of outputting a screen to display the content of the at least the part of the utterance as the candidate for the training data for machine learning in Weisz’s invention as taught by Shibui and Kanungo. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide proper visual information of a particular content.
Regarding claim 7, Weisz teaches wherein the content of the at least the part of the utterance in the utterance section includes at least one of the speech data corresponding to the utterance section or a character string obtained by converting the speech data corresponding to the utterance section (fig.3, steps 302, 304; paragraphs 0040-0041).
Regarding claim 8, Weisz teaches wherein the speech data is related to one or more utterances of a plurality of speakers in a conversation (paragraphs 0001, 0061).
However, Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo does not specifically teach the one or more utterances including the utterance, the plurality of speakers including a main speaker. Examiner takes an official notice that the one or more utterances including the utterance, the plurality of speakers including a main speaker is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo to incorporate the feature of the one or more utterances including the utterance, the plurality of speakers including a main speaker in Weisz’s invention in view of Shibui’s invention further in view of Kanungo’s invention in order to provide an utterance of a main speaker.
Regarding claim 9, Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo does not specifically teach wherein the one or more condition includes a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the one or more condition includes a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo to incorporate the feature of wherein the one or more conditions include a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker in Weisz’s invention in view of Shibui’s invention further in view of Kanungo’s invention in order to provide an utterance of a main speaker as a condition.
Regarding claim 10, Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo does not specifically teach wherein the one or more condition includes a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker and lacks simultaneous utterance in which the utterance and another utterance temporally overlap each other. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the one or more condition includes a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker and lacks simultaneous utterance in which the utterance and another utterance temporally overlap each other.is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo to incorporate the feature of wherein the one or more condition includes a condition that the utterance is made by the main speaker and lacks simultaneous utterance in which the utterance and another utterance temporally overlap each other. in Weisz’s invention in view of Shibui’s invention further in view of Kanungo’s invention in order to provide an utterance of a main speaker whose utterance temporarily overlaps with another utterance conveniently.
Regarding claim 14, Weisz teaches that the one or more conditions are set according to a user operation (fig.4; paragraphs 0051, 0072).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Weisz teaches non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus, cause the processors to perform a method (paragraphs 0058, 0077, claim 21).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0139373) in view of Shibui et al. (Japanese Pub. No. JP2010032861A) further in view of Kanungo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0120131) further in view of Kumazawa (Japanese Pub. No. JP2010185967A).
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Weisz in view of Shibui further in view of Kanungo does not specifically teach wherein the content of the at least the part of the utterance displayed on the screen is selectable for the training data to be generated, and the circuitry is further configured to generate the training data based on the content of the at least the part of the utterance selected according to a user operation performed on the screen. Kumazawa teaches wherein the content of the at least the part of the utterance displayed on the screen is selectable for the training data to be generated, and the circuitry is further configured to generate the training data based on the content of the at least the part of the utterance selected according to a user operation performed on the screen (paragraph 12 under “DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weisz in view of Shibui to incorporate the feature of wherein the content of the at least the part of the utterance displayed on the screen is selectable for the training data to be generated, and the circuitry is further configured to generate the training data based on the content of the at least the part of the utterance selected according to a user operation performed on the screen in Weisz’s invention in view of Shibui’s invention further in view of Kanungo’s invention in order to provide an option to an instructor to make an easy selection of a particular content of utterance displayed on a screen as a training content/data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
February 28, 2026