DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 01/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,100,943, and Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,722. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patents ‘943 and ‘722 anticipate the instant claims. Independent claims 21, 32, and 40 in the current App. ‘995 are anticipated by independent claims 1 and 8 in the patent ‘722 and claims 1, 18, 19 in the patent ‘943. Dependent claims 22-31; and 33-39 follow likewise the similar mapping to the corresponding dependent claims in the patents ‘943 and ‘722.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 21-40 would be allowable over the prior art of record for at least the following rationale.
Notwithstanding the teachings of Bastide et al. (U.S. Patent Application: 2013/0311177, hereinafter BASTIDE); Palakodety, et al. (U.S. Patent Application: 2018/0197548, hereinafter PALAKODETY), and further Bobbitt, et al. (U.S. Patent Application: 2009/0307189, hereinafter BOBBITT), all already of record, said teachings disclose as follows:
BASTIDE discloses a computer system configuration comprising a user interface device receiving spoken input from at least one of the two people where received spoken input is transcribed into text, and where user comments are further converted from voice to text (e.g., LI for synchronized text). Annotating features in agreement with said computer system configuration offers a page displaying in the vicinity of the location of the feature the correlated text element (e.g., presenter displays Slide 1 in the web conference). (See e.g., BASTIDE paras. 6, 39, 53).
PALAKODETY discloses a method for diarization of speech, automated generation of transcripts, and automatic information extraction. Said method further discloses a combination module detecting continuous short audio segments of same identified speaker and combines them into a longer audio block. Audio blocks are associated with one identified speaker, and an audio recording segmented by speaker to the transcribing module is provided. (See e.g., PALAKODETY paras. 55-57).
BOBBITT discloses a virtual workspace with capabilities for capturing into a time-based record as potential presentation, where multimedia data including, but not limited to, text, audio, video, files, sources, contacts, discussions, etc. can be maintained in a chronological format within the time-based record. (See e.g., BOBBITT paras. 33).
Said provided teachings in BASTIDE, PALAKODETY, and BOBBITT are found to fail to teach or fairly suggest either individually or in a reasonable combination the recited limitations in independent Claims 21, 32, and 40 as specifically recited.
Similarly, dependent claims 22-31; 33-39 further limit allowable independent Claim 21 and 32 correspondingly, and thus they would also be allowable over the prior art of record by virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Please, see additional references in form PTO-892 for more details.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Edgar Guerra-Erazo whose telephone number is (571) 270-3708. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on (571) 272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
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.
/EDGAR X GUERRA-ERAZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights