Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. In view of Applicant’s argument [Remarks] and amendments filed 08/19/2025, claim rejections with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Andraszek teaches away from the features of Pettay because the former focuses on redacting or encrypting sensitive data, while the latter focuses on structuring and exposing data for audio and compliance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the high-level purpose of Andraszek (security) and Pettay (audit) may differ, the references are not incompatible at the structural or functional level. In fact, Andraszek discloses segmenting and tagging portions of audio data (p[0040]-[0043]), storing them with metadata and associating those segments with speaker identity, timestamps and content type, altogether facilitating structured analysis. Pettay discloses converting segmented voice data to searchable, analyzable text and organizing it for compliance review (Col 9:16-56). Incorporating such structuring into Andraszek’s existing system would improve traceability and compliance verification. Per MPEP 2143.01 (B) Example 5, a reference that merely has a different primary purpose or advantage does not “teach away” because the problem to be solved is not limited to the application chosen by Andraszek or Pettay. If a reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable it does not teach away, Andraszek and Pettay give no indication of undesirability, merely different applications of combinable functionality.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Andraszek and Pettay, the Examiner maintains that the motivation to combine remains clear. As articulated in the previous Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the value of converting segmented voice data into analyzable text and organizing it for downstream auditability, reporting and compliance workflows within a system that already segments and tags sensitive content.
Applicant further argues that Cougias does not justify storing a plan and implementation information in distinct database areas as claimed and further that modifying Andraszek to incorporate this would be disadvantageous and contrary to its purpose. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cougias discloses storing compliance information such as audit controls, citations and record categories in structured formats (Col 6:10-20; Col 9:40-63). These distinctions align with the applicant’s plan and implementation classification. Citations may correspond to high-level policy or plan data, while record categories and control records relate to actual implementation. Nothing In Andraszek precludes such structured classification. Even when storing redacted or encrypted portions, Andraszek describes segmenting and associating metadata to audio content, such that information types may be selectively stored or flagged. Storing plan vs. implementation data in distinct areas is a routine design choice for audit systems and would not fundamentally change Andraszek’s functionality.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 based on the combinations of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
5. Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andraszek (US 9,544,438) in view of Pettay (US 7,191,133).
Regarding Claim 1:
Andraszek discloses a material compliance system, comprising:
a call information receiving module, a database, and an output module, characterized in that further comprising a voice labeling module, a voice segmentation module, a voice recognition module, and a voice analysis module (Andraszek: Fig. 2 Col 8 line 57- Col 10 line 10 contains components that have the same functional capabilities as the modules disclosed within the specification);
wherein the call information receiving module receives call information, which includes original recording information (Andraszek: Col 11 lines 34-45 Accordingly, the call handler receives a call related event notification over the signaling link);
the voice labeling module receives the call information sent by the call information receiving module, recognizes voice of the original recording information of the call information, and when there is preset label information in the original recording information, controls to insert flag information corresponding to the preset label information into the original recording information to form primary recording information, and sends the primary recording information to the voice segmentation module (Andraszek: Col 4 line 55- Col 5 line 5 and Col 8 line 57- Col 9 line 12 discloses sensitive events and instructs tagging via a marking module, essentially it labels information during the voice recognition process);
the voice segmentation module receives the primary recording information sent by the voice labeling module, segments the primary recording information according to the flag information to form intermediate recording information containing the label information, and then sends the intermediate recording information to the voice recognition module (Andraszek: Col 13 lines 45-65 discloses that the marking module sets start and end flags based on detected speech events, effectively segmenting the recording);
;
and the output module outputs the received compliance information (Andraszek: Col 10 lines 20-25 outputs compliance analysis masked transcript, reports etc., The compliance information under the broadest reasonable interpretation is any such data that is derived from a conversation that is relevant to determining whether the conversation adheres to one or more predefined rules, requirements or conditions either to ensure inclusion OR redaction).
Andraszek does not explicitly disclose the crossed out limitation above. However, Pettay does disclose the voice recognition module receives more than one of the intermediate recording information sent by the voice segmentation module, converts the intermediate recording information into final text information, and sends the final text information to the voice analysis module (Pettay: Col 9 lines 39-56 discloses the speech undergoes analysis to convert to written text);
the voice analysis module receives the final text information sent by the voice recognition module, organizes the final text information to obtain compliance information, classifies the compliance information according to classifications of the flag information corresponding to the label information in the compliance information, and stores the compliance information in different areas of the database according to the classifications of different compliance information (Pettay: Col 9 lines 16-48 discloses that the text is analyzed to determine of the agent followed the required script);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate speech-to-text transcript and compliance classification mechanisms of Pettay into segmentation and flagging system of Andraszek in order to enhance the system’s ability to analyze and store structured compliance data in textual form. Both references are in the same field of call monitoring and compliance enforcement and are reasonably pertinent to one another. The motivation to combine arises from the recognized value of converting segmented voice data into searchable, analyzable text as taught in Pettay to improve auditability, downstream reporting and automated compliance workflows, particularly in system already tagging and segmenting sensitive content as in Andraszek.
It is noted that Under the broadest reasonable interpretation “compliance information” refers to data from conversation that is relevant to determining whether the conversation adheres to one or more predefined rules, requirements or conditions – encompassing redaction triggers, script validation or presence of mandatory metadata.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the call information further includes contact person information and contact time information, wherein the contact person information, the contact time information, and the original recording information associate with each other (Andraszek: Col 6 lines records time stamps, personal information which is part of the original recording. Pettay: Col 2 lines 10-32 caller ID’s themselves);
the voice labeling module associates the contact person information, the contact time information, and the primary recording information formed by the original recording information, and then sent the information to the voice segmentation module (Andraszek: Col 12 lines 55-67 teaches inserting flags and generating primary recording instances with time/event metadata. Pettay: Col 10 lines 28-40 teaches linking agent identity to call segments and transcription);
the voice segmentation module receives the primary recording information, the contact person information, and the contact time information sent by the voice labeling module, associates the contact person information, the contact time information, and the intermediate recording information formed by the primary recording information, and then sent the information to the voice recognition module (Andraszek: Col 13 lines 45-65 in order to mark flags the time information is, labeled/flagged audio is required to perform this task. Pettay: Col 10 lines 28-40 teaches speaker identity across analyzed segments and logs);
the voice recognition module receives the intermediate recording information, the contact person information, and the contact time information sent by the voice segmentation module, associates the contact person information, the contact time information, and the final text information formed by the intermediate recording information, and then sent the information to the voice analysis module (Andraszek: Pettay: Col 10 line 62 – Col 11 line 8 teaches that transcribed speech is linked to the speaker and timestamped);
and the voice analysis module receives the final text information, the contact person information, and the contact time information sent by the voice recognition module, associates the contact person information, the contact time information, and the compliance information obtained by organizing the final text information, and then store the information into different areas of the database with the compliance information (Pettay: Col 8 lines 7-27 discloses compliance data is stored in a compliance database along with speaker metadata and timestamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the metadata association techniques (e.g., agent identity) taught by Pettay into the compliance system of Andraszek which already includes timestamp information and compliance information from the original voice data. The motivation would be to enhance the traceability, auditability and role-specific job of compliance related events in recorded calls.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising a
searching module and a searching input module (Pettay: Col 6 lines 3-19 the system can retrieve a specific call or call segment based on metadata such as call ID, time or script tag);
the database stores the call information (Andraszek: Col 5 lines 5-25 the metadata may be stored along with a recording of the call Pettay: Col 11 lines 24-44 Log storage of ASR text and scripts);
the searching input module inputs the contact person information and the contact time information to the searching module (Pettay: Col 10 line 62- Col 11 line 50 the caller’s name and time of call to locate the relevant conversation);
and the searching module retrieves the call information based on the contact person information and the contact time information input by the searching input module and sends the call information to the voice labeling module (Pettay: Col 10 line 62- Col 11 line 50 The search engine retrieves the appropriate conversation segment based on the metadata and forwards it for compliance analysis);
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 3, further comprising a label input module, wherein the label input module sends the label information to the voice labeling module (Andraszek: Col 5 line 55- Col 6 line 18 while not called a label input module, the SAS generates and passes label information internally 9automated labeling)).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein inserting the flag information into the original recording information to form the primary recording information, further comprising:
obtaining the corresponding flag information based on the label information in the original recording information, and inserting the flag information into a byte of a voice pause before the label information in the original recording information, to form the primary recording information (Andraszek: Col 11 lines 55-67 label information (e.g., detection of sensitive keywords) is used to obtain flagging/tagging information with the marking module).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein inserting the label information the original recording information to form primary recording information, specially comprising:
obtaining the corresponding flag information according to the label information in the original recording information (Andraszek: Col 5 lines 55-67 the SAS uses detected label information (e.g., sensitive data) to trigger tagging (flagging) operations), finding the segment to which the label information in the original recording information belongs (Andraszek: Col 12 lines 33-61 discloses defining a bounded segment of interest using start and end points based on label/flag events), and
inserting the flag information corresponding to the label information at both ends of the segment to form the primary recording information (Andraszek: Col 12 lines 33-61 start and end flags are inserted, marking a segment as primary/compliance-sensitive content).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 6, wherein segmenting the primary recording information according to the flag information to form intermediate recording information, specially comprising:
cutting out the flag information in the primary recording information to obtain multiple intermediate recording information that belong to a same primary recording information (Andraszek: Col 14 lines 4-21 teaches extracting multiple marked segments from one call instance (primary recording), treating them as distinct chunks (intermediate)).
Regarding Claim 12:
Andraszek and Pettay further disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising:
an input module and a filtering module (Andraszek: Fig. 2 call handler 210 and speech analytics module 230 cover input, blocks 240 and 250 further filter by label and time);
wherein the input module sends input information, including at least one of the contact person information, the preset label information, and the contact time information, to the filtering module (Andraszek: Col 17 line 50- Col 18 line 5metadata associated with the recording such as caller ID, time of call, keywords);
and the filtering module filters out the corresponding compliance information from the database based on the input information and sends the compliance information to the output module (Andraszek: Col 7 lines 1-14 compliance info is filtered by metadata and routed to output for display of user).
6. Claims 8-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andraszek in view of Pettay and further in view of Cougias (US 11,216,495).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein comprising obtaining the compliance information by organizing final text information, and sending the compliance information to the database for storage, specially comprising:
locating the contact time information corresponding to the final text information (Andraszek: Col 17 line 50 – Col 18 line 5: final text is derived from segments marked by time-related metadata);
identifying the classification of the flag information corresponding to the label information in the final text information (Andraszek: Col 14 line 4-21 the event type generally identifies the type of sensitive information… SSN, account number, flags correspond to these classifications);
analyzing a time description part and an event description part in the final text information, and calculating the compliance time based on the time description part and the contact time information (Pettay: Col 6 lines 32-43, Col 10 lines 28-40, Col 10 line 60 – Col 11 line 8 System analyzes and helps to analyze time constraints for quality assurance timing of utterances);
associating the compliance time, the event description part in the final text information, the contact person information corresponding to the final text information, the contact time information corresponding to the final text information, and the label information in the final text information to obtain the compliance information (Andraszek: Col 17 line 50 – Col 18 line 5 text, time, event types and flagged segments are all linked);
classifying the compliance information based on the classifications of the flag information corresponding to the label information in the compliance information (Andraszek: Col 17 line 50 – Col 18 line 5 event types are classified);
The combination of Andraszek and Pettay does not disclose the crossed out limitations above. However, Cougias discloses storing the compliance information in different areas of the database according to the classifications of the compliance information (Cougias: Col 6 lines 19-40 discloses that compliance data is organized into categories);
wherein the compliance information includes two classifications, namely, plan information and implementation information (Cougias: Col 6 lines 19-40 discloses that compliance data is organized into categories such as controls, audit items, citations and record categories, which can be reasonably interpreted as a “plan”);
and the database is divided into a plan area and an implementation area (Cougias: Col 6 lines 10-20 the separation of structured data into tables based on function means a system design that naturally supports differentiated storage areas akin to “plan” and “implementation”)
wherein the plan area stores the plan information, and the implementation area stores the implementation information (Cougias: Col 9 lines 40-63 lines audit questions test whether the planned controls were implemented, and this evaluative pairing is stored in linked but distinct parts of the system, functionally doing a plan and implementation split).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pettay’s transcription and compliance timing analysis with Andraszek’s segmentation and classification framework, to enhance compliance systems by allowing not just redaction but also full compliance tracking (including timing and participant metadata). The motivation for doing do is improving audit design and speech compliance checking beyond redaction use cases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cougias into the combination of Andraszek and Pettay. Cougias teaches that separating compliance types (planned and actual/audited) improve traceability, auditing and regulatory readiness in the background of invention. Applying this to flagged compliance segments from Andraszek and Pettay is a natural extension.
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising a monitoring module (Pettay: Col 5 lines 1-20 tracks compliance through analysis of whether spoken input matches a planned script this serves the function of a monitor module);
wherein the monitoring module retrieves the plan information and the implementation information from the database within a preset time range and compares the plan information with the implementation information (Pettay: Col 10 lines 28-39 compliance results are time-stamped. Cougias: Fig. 15 Col 9 line 64- Col 10 line 7 audit records are linked with guidance… referencing origin and timing i.e., time-based review of compliance expectations vs outcomes is disclosed by the combination);
when no implementation information exists, the monitoring module sends the plan information to the output module (Pettay: Col 5 lines 45-60 compares panned vs spoken compliance actions).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the monitoring module associates the plan information with the implementation information (Pettay: Col 5 30-60 associates planned content expected utterances with actual transcripts, thus creating a comparison set);
the associated plan and the implementation information forms the summary information, which is sent to the output module (Pettay: Col 12 lines 15=45 generates and outputs a compliance score).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein: the monitoring module further retrieves the plan information and the implementation information from the database within the preset time range and compares the plan information with the implementation information (Andraszek: Col 13 lines 45-65 teaches receiving and segmenting call audio based on flagged events and associating those segments with compliance metadata);
when there is no implementation information, the monitoring module extracts the compliance time from the plan information corresponding to the implementation information (Pettay: Col 5 lines 45-60 teaches comparing expected script content with actual spoken input, detecting missing content and generating supervisor alerts);
and if the difference between the compliance time and a current time point is within a preset difference range, the monitoring module sends the plan information to the output module (Cougias: Col 6 lines 10-20 teaches storing compliance records with timestamped metadata).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 has been analyzed with regard to claims 1, 8 and 9 (see rejections above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above. Claim 13 is the method claim of the system that is already taught.
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the call information receiving module sending the call information to the voice labeling module in the S1 specially comprising:
the call information receiving module sending the received call information to the database for storage (Andraszek: Col 5 lines 5-25 call information is sent to storage upon receipt);
the searching input module inputting the contact person information and the contact time information (Andraszek: Col 5 lines 5-25 has timestamp, Pettay Col 10 lines 25-40 collects called ID);
the searching module retrieves the corresponding call information from the database based on the contact person information and the contact time information input by the searching input module, and sending the call information to the voice labeling module (Pettay: Col 6 lines 3-19 the system can retrieve a specific call or call segment based on metadata such as call ID, time or script tag).
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to claim 5 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 has been analyzed with regard to claim 6 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the voice analysis module organizing the final text information to obtain the compliance information in the S5, specially comprising:
filtering the contact time information corresponding to the final text information (Pettay: Col 5 lines 30-60 discloses extracting final text from speech and associated it with time and context metadata);
identifying the classification of the flag information corresponding to the label information in the final text information (Andraszek: Col 4 line 55- Col 5 line 5 and Col 8 line 57- Col 9 line 12 teaches identifying sensitive content based on labels and inserting flags around it for segmentation and compliance analysis);
analyzing a time description part and an event description part in the final text information, and calculating the compliance time based on the time description part and the contact time information (Pettay: Col 6 lines 32-43, Col 10 lines 28-40, Col 10 line 60 – Col 11 line 8 System analyzes and helps to analyze time constraints for quality assurance timing of utterances);
associating the compliance time, the event description part in the final text information, the contact person information corresponding to the final text information, the contact time information corresponding to the final text information, and the label information in the final text information to obtain the compliance information (Andraszek: Col 17 line 50 – Col 18 line 5 text, time, event types and flagged segments are all linked).
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to claim 8 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 has been analyzed with regard to claim 9 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the predetermined operations in the S6 comprising: comparing the plan information with the implementation information (Pettay: Col 12 lines 18-45 the system identifies script violations or omission by comparing actual speech with the required script content), and extracting the compliance time from the plan information corresponding to the implementation information when there is no implementation information (Cougias: Fig. 15 Col 9 line 64- Col 10 line 7, Col 5 lines 56-67 audit records are tied to the planned action or requirement, these include control records and authority document entries that include dates etc.);
sending the plan information to the output module when the difference between the compliance time and the current time is within a preset range (Cougias: Fig. 14 Col 13 lines 15-45 and audit table 1400 enables comparison logic and automated output/reporting).
Although Andraszek, Pettay and Cougias do not explicitly teach sending the plan information to the output module when the difference between the compliance time and the current time is within a preset range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Cougias architecture. Cougias supports structured compliance records with timestamps (Date Modified), metadata-based automation (Fig. 15 Col 9 line 64- Col 10 line 7), and audit tables that generate output questions or reports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare the stored compliance time to the system clock and trigger the output of a pending plan item when it’s within a schedule time window. This would be a common enhancement in audit scheduling and compliance systems making it a predictable use of existing timestamp fields with minimal implementation effort or experimentation.
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 IAN SCOTT MCLEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4599. The examiner can normally be reached "Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every 2nd 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, 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.
/IAN SCOTT MCLEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights