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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of language translation, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, receiving an audio interaction from a customer in a source language (can be done by listening to a user speak), identifying the source language from a portion of the audio interaction (can be done by a user identifying the speaker language), dividing the portion of the audio interaction into frames by audio segmentation (can be done by a user parsing the audio data received), converting the frames into text in the source language (can be done by a user transcribing the data), translating the text in the source language to text in a target language of an agent (can be done by the user translating the data from a source to target language),
converting the text in the target language to speech in the target language (can be done by a user reading the text data); and providing the speech in the target language to the agent in real-time (providing the data in real-time).
The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as making determinations and storing the data, which is all mental processing and is not statutory.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103a as being unpatentable over Chochowski et al. (USPN 10,402,500), hereinafter referenced as Chochowski in view of Ohayon (PGPUB 2024/0386879).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Chockowski discloses a translation and customer interaction distribution system, method and medium, hereinafter referenced as a system comprising:
a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor (column 16, line 64 – column 17, line 19), to perform operations which comprise:
receiving an audio interaction from a customer in a source language (fig. 1, element 1001 and column 11, lines 4-67);
identifying the source language from a portion of the audio interaction (fig. 1, element 1001, 1003, column 5, lines 14-53 and column 11, lines 4-67);
dividing the portion of the audio interaction into frames by audio segmentation (column 5, lines 63-64 and column 11, lines 4-67);
converting the frames into text in the source language (fig. 1 with column 5, lines 14-53 and column 11, lines 4-67);
translating the text in the source language to text in a target language of an agent (fig. 1, element 1002, column 5, lines 14-53 and column 11, lines 4-67);
converting the text in the target language to speech in the target language (fig. 1, element 1004, column 5, lines 14-53 and column 11, lines 4-67); and
providing the speech in the target language to the agent (column 5, lines 1-53 and column 11, lines 4-67), but does not specifically teach providing the speech in the target language to the agent in real-time.
Ohayon discloses a system comprising providing the speech in the target language to the agent in real-time (p. 0023-0028, 0044-0051), to communicate more efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, improve productivity.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chochowski discloses the direction change of the conversation (column 6, lines 40-47).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, Chochowski discloses a system wherein the audio segmentation comprises an energy-based segmentation, a silence-based segmentation, or a waveform based segmentation (voice segment; column 11, lines 4-67).
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chochowski in view of Ji (PGPUB 2013/0226553).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Chochowski discloses a system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise determining a quality of the translation in the source language to the target language.
Ji discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise determining a quality of the translation in the source language to the target language (p. 0020), to assist with obtaining a proper translation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, such that communication can be clear.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chochowski in view of Hirani et al. (PGPUB 2019/0147884), hereinafter referenced as Hirani.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Chochowski discloses a system further comprising storing the text in the source language in a first buffer before translation of the text in the source language to the text in the target language (column 16, line 54 – column 17, line 10), but does not specifically teach a circular buffer.
Hirani discloses a circular buffer (p. 0036), to assist with real-time language translation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to reduce latency in processing.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chochowski discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise storing the text in the target language in a second buffer before conversion of the text in the target language to the speech in the target language (column 16, line 54 – column 17, line 10).
Regarding claim 20, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth in the combination of claims 5 and 7.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chochowski in view of Hirani and in further view of Sandler et al. (USPN 10,242,669), hereinafter referenced as Sandler.
Regarding claim 6, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth in claims 5, 7 and 14-15, but the prior art cited fails to teach detecting a punctuation mark.
Sandler discloses a system comprising detecting a punctuation mark (column 7, line 59 – column 8, line 23), to assist with real-time conversations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to improve semantic accuracy over transcription.
Regarding claim 8, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Sandler discloses a system wherein the text in the target language is stored in the second circular buffer until the second circular buffer detects a bit pause (silence; column 7, line 59 – column 8, line 23).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chochowski in view of Kelly et al. (PGPUB 2013/0129058), hereinafter referenced as Kelly.
Regarding claim 9, Chochowski discloses a system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that an agent speaking the source language is not available; and
determining that a threshold waiting time for the customer is exceeded.
Kelly discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that an agent speaking the source language is not available (agent proficient in the preferred language is unavailable; abstract with p. 0128-0129); and
determining that a threshold waiting time for the customer is exceeded (not within the threshold; p. 0128-0129), to improve communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to customize user’s experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657