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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 1/7/2026 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 11 in the filing on 1/7/2026 that the cited prior art does not teach a content item editor “because the chat based interactions don't teach at least, the content item editor, there is no teaching of editing the chats, and there is no "pre-existing text that existed prior to speech of one or more speakers,” in claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Respectfully, the combination of Burckart and Bhat teach the above. Claim 1 requires that the content item editor is a database management system. Burckart teaches a chat server that receives text information from a client and the chat server stores the text information. This fulfills the requirement of a database management system. Furthermore, Buckart’s chat server processes the text information, and then also sends the text information to the IM clients. Further processing and sending are also functions of a database management system. See Burckart 0046-0047, cited in the rejection below.
Burckart also teaches editing the chats in Fig. 3 by appending the chat log with a transcript of a voice chat session. Fig. 3 shows that the text chat section 138 occurs before the captured audio data section 140. Burckart Fig. 6 step 208 stores text data into the chat log. This occurs before capturing audio data in step 212.
Burckart also teaches pre-existing text that existed prior to speech. Fig. 3 shows that the text chat section 138 occurs before the captured audio data section 140. Burckart Fig. 6 step 208 stores text data into the chat log. This occurs before capturing audio data in step 212. See rejection below.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 11 that “the art fails to teach or suggest "modifying, by the content creation system, the collaboration document by embedding within the collaboration document a transcript comprising second text generated from the captured meeting audio data and modifying the transcript with third text showing detected speaker names associated with respective utterances in the transcript"” in claim 1.
Response to Argument 2: Respectfully, the combination of Burckart and Bhat teach the above. Burckart Fig. 3 teaches a chat log (which requires at least 2 users) as a collaboration document. The chat log is modified by embedding a voice transcript into it. See Fig. 3 section 140. This includes second text as an audio transcript (section 140). This includes third text showing which speaker said which lines—Burckart Fig. 3 shows “User_1” and “User_2” before each line in voice transcript 140. In a voice chat, users in natural conversation do not say their name each time before speaking, so “User_1” and “User_2” have been added into the voice transcription to show detected speakers with each utterance. See rejection below.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Arguments 1 and 2 filed on 1/7/2026 are not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "after storing the collaboration document, storing at the content creation system, captured meeting audio data,” in lines 7-8. There is already captured meeting audio data introduced in line 6. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the captured meeting audio data in lines 7-8 are the same as the captured audio data in line 6, or different than the captured meeting audio data in line 6, or is referring to any captured audio data. For the purposes of express examination, the Examiner interprets the captured meeting audio data in lines 7-8 to mean any captured audio data. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
Claims 2-7 depend on independent claim 1, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 1.
Claims 9-14 depend on independent claim 8, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 8.
Claims 16-20 depend on independent claim 15, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 15.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burckart et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20090048845 A1 (hereinafter “Burckart”), in view of Bhat et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20170046339 A1 (hereinafter “Bhat”).
Claim 1: Burckart teaches “A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing, at a content creation system, a collaboration document that has been generated using a content item editor (i.e. create corresponding chat history logs 132 [Burckart 0050, Fig. 6 step 208]… client memory is configured to store a chat history log associated with the chat session between the local instant messaging client and the remote instant messaging client [0005] note: a chat history includes input from multiple users, thus it is a collaborative document. Note2: content item editor in instant specification 0035 is for creating, viewing and modifying content. Chat history logs are created in Burckart 0050, viewed in Fig. 3, and modified in Fig. 6 steps 208 (storing text), 222 (more text activity), 208 (storing text again, which is modifying)), wherein the content item editor is one of a word processor, a video editor, an image editor, a database management system (i.e. The chat server 112 then receives 204 text information from the sending IM client and locally stores 206 the text information. In one embodiment, the text server 150 processes the text information. The chat server 112 then sends 208 the text information to each of the IM clients [Burckart 0046]… The voice server 152 then stores 214 the voice information in an audio file… transcribes 216 the voice information in the audio file to generate voice transcription data... the voice server 152 stores the voice transcription data in the transcription memory 156. The voice server 152 then sends 218 the voice transcription data to each of the IM clients [Burckart 0047] note: a database management system of chat/voice data), a spreadsheet application, or a code editor, the collaboration document including first text (Burckart’s text chat section of the chat history transcript, Fig. 3 element 138) comprising pre-existing text that existed prior to speech of one or more speakers that is captured in meeting audio data (Burckart Fig. 3 shows that the text chat section 138 occurs before the captured audio data section 140. Burckart Fig. 6 step 208 stores text data into the chat log. This occurs before capturing audio data in step 212);
after storing the collaboration document, storing, at the content creation system, captured meeting audio data in association with the collaboration document (i.e. receives 212 voice information. The voice server 152 then stores 214 the voice information in an audio file [Burckart 0047, Fig 6] note: Burckart Fig. 6 step 208, stores the text portion of the chat history log. After storing the collaborative chat history, a voice chat session is initiated in step 212, and after that, the voice information is stored in an audio file in step 214. Note2: Burckart Fig. 6 shows that voice information is stored in 214, then the voice information is transcribed in 216, and the transcription is appended into the chat history log in 218. Thus, at least the content of the captured meeting audio data is stored in association with the collaborative chat history log), the captured meeting audio data having been recorded by the content creation system (i.e. voice chat session may originate from an instant messaging (IM) session [Burckart 0020]) or uploaded from an external source and including the speech of the one or more speakers (i.e. voice chat [Burckart 0020, Fig. 3 user_1 and user_2]), and the collaboration document originating separately from the captured meeting audio data (Burckart Fig 7 shows chat history log collaboration document is originated at step 234, before the audio information. Burckart Fig. 6 shows the audio data originating in step 212, well after the text chat history was generated in 208. The BRI of “originating separately” includes originating at a different point in time);
modifying, by the content creation system, the collaboration document by embedding within the collaboration document a transcript (i.e. transcription engine 154 transcribes 216 the voice information in the audio file to generate voice transcription data… sends 218 the voice transcription data to each of the IM clients for storage in the corresponding chat history logs 132 [Burckart 0047, Fig. 6] note: the chat history log is modified to include the voice transcription) comprising second text generated from the captured meeting audio data (Burckart’s voice chat section of the chat history transcript, Fig. 3 element 140) and modifying the transcript with third text showing detected speaker names associated with respective utterances in the transcript (Burckart Fig. 3 shows “User_1” and “User_2” before each line in voice transcript 140. In a voice chat, users in natural conversation do not say their name each time before speaking, so “User_1” and “User_2” have been added into the voice transcription to show detected speakers with each utterance);…”
Burckart is silent regarding “receiving, by the content creation system, a search query comprising one or more keywords;
performing, by the content creation system, a document search of the collaboration document, including a search through… the second text, and the third text, based on the search query;
identifying, by the content creation system, portions of… the second text, and the third text that corresponds to the one or more keywords.”
Bhat teaches “receiving, by the content creation system, a search query comprising one or more keywords (i.e. the search component 143 can search the transcript specifications 156 for transcription data that matches the user's search query [Bhat 0049]… a user can input a string of characters that represent a word or phrase. As one example, a user can input the string of “four score and seven years ago,” indicating that the user wants to find multimedia files 126 in which this phrase is represented in the audio. The user can also search by a person's name [Bhat 0047]);
performing, by the content creation system, a document search of the collaboration document, including a search through… the second text, and the third text, based on the search query (i.e. the search component 143 can search the transcript specifications 156 for transcription data that matches the user's search query [Bhat 0049]… a user can input a string of characters that represent a word or phrase. As one example, a user can input the string of “four score and seven years ago,” indicating that the user wants to find multimedia files 126 in which this phrase is represented in the audio. The user can also search by a person's name [Bhat 0047]); and
identifying, by the content creation system, portions of… the second text, and the third text that corresponds to the one or more keywords (i.e. the search component 143 can search the transcript specifications 156 for transcription data that matches the user's search query [Bhat 0049]… a user can input a string of characters that represent a word or phrase. As one example, a user can input the string of “four score and seven years ago,” indicating that the user wants to find multimedia files 126 in which this phrase is represented in the audio. The user can also search by a person's name [Bhat 0047]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Burckart to include the feature of having the ability to search transcripts as disclosed by Bhat.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to more easily and quickly reference an utterance a user said in a voice call.
None of Burckart and Bhat alone teach searching a transcript for first text and second text and third text. Burckart teaches a log including first text (Fig. 3 element 138) and second text (Fig. 3 element 140). Bhat teaches searchable transcripts including second text and third text (Bhat 0047, 0049). The combination of Buckart’s log comprising first text and second text and Bhat’s searchable transcripts comprising second text and third text results in a searchable log that includes first text, second text, and third text.
Claim 2: Burckart and Bhat teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Burckart teaches “wherein storing captured meeting audio data comprises:
causing capture, by the content creation system, of the meeting audio data via one or more microphones (i.e. there is a request to switch from the text chat session to a voice chat session and, if so, receives 212 voice information [Burckart 0047] note: voice chat uses microphones); and
storing, by the content creation system, the captured meeting audio data (i.e. store the voice information in an audio file (e.g., a .wav file) [Burckart 0003]) in association with the collaboration document of the content creation system (Burckart Fig. 6 shows that voice information is stored in 214, then the voice information is transcribed in 216, and the transcription is appended into the chat history log in 218. Thus, at least the content of the captured meeting audio data is stored in association with the collaborative chat history log).
Claim 3: Burckart and Bhat teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Burckart teaches “wherein the first text of the collaboration document comprises pre-existing text that existed prior to the speech of the one or more speakers that is captured in the meeting audio data (Burckart Fig. 3 shows pre-existing text of a “text chat session” that existed prior to the “voice chat session”).”
Claim 5: Burckart and Bhat teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. From claim 1, Burckart and Bhat teach a searchable log that includes first text and second text and third text. Burckart teaches “wherein identifying portions of the first text, the second text, and the third text that correspond to the one or more keywords comprises identifying portions of the first text, the second text, and the third text that correspond to variants of the one or more keywords (i.e. the search engine can perform search algorithms that search for synonyms and terms related to the user's search query [Bhat 0048]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Burckart and Bhat, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to increase the number of relevant search results.
Claim 8: Burckart and Bhat teach a system comprising: one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (i.e. data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code includes at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements [Burckart 0065]), cause the one or more processors to perform steps corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9: Claim 9 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10: Claim 10 is similar in content and in scope to claim 3, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15: Burckart and Bhat teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising memory with instructions encoded thereon that, when executed, cause one or more processors (i.e. data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code includes at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements [Burckart 0065]) to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16: Claim 16 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17: Claim 17 is similar in content and in scope to claim 3, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burckart, in view of Bhat, in view of Locascio et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20190051301 A1, (hereinafter “Locascio”).
Claim 4: Burckart and Bhat teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. From claim 1, Burckart and Bhat teach a searchable log that includes first text and second text and third text.
Bhat teaches “wherein:
receiving the search query comprises receiving one or more search terms that includes a speaker name (i.e. a user can input a string of characters that represent a word or phrase. As one example, a user can input the string of “four score and seven years ago,” indicating that the user wants to find multimedia files 126 in which this phrase is represented in the audio. The user can also search by a person's name [Bhat 0047]),”
Burckart and Bhat are silent regarding “identifying portions of the first text, the second text, and the third text that correspond to the one or more keywords includes identifying portions of the transcript representing speech associated with the speaker name.”
Locascio teaches “identifying portions of the first text, the second text, and the third text that correspond to the one or more keywords includes identifying portions of the transcript representing speech associated with the speaker name (i.e. search results comprising a plurality of searchable transcripts based on parameters extracted from the search query [Locascio 0139] note: a query returning matching transcripts includes returning matching portions of the transcripts).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Burckart and Bhat to include the feature of having the ability to identify search results as disclosed by Locascio.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of having more types of text in the log, keeping all logs in the same place, reducing clutter, making them easier to find, and easier to query.
Claim 6: Burckart and Bhat and Locascio teach all the limitations of claim 4, above. Bhat teaches “wherein identifying portions of the transcript representing speech associated with the speaker name comprises identifying portions of the transcript that correspond to speech spoken by a person having the speaker name (i.e. a user can input a string of characters that represent a word or phrase. As one example, a user can input the string of “four score and seven years ago,” indicating that the user wants to find multimedia files 126 in which this phrase is represented in the audio. The user can also search by a person's name [Bhat 0047]).” Locascio teaches “wherein identifying portions of the transcript representing speech associated with the speaker name comprises identifying portions of the transcript that correspond to speech spoken by a person having the… [text] (i.e. search results comprising a plurality of searchable transcripts based on parameters extracted from the search query [Locascio 0139] note: a query returning matching transcripts includes returning matching portions of the transcripts)”
One would have been motivated to combine Burckart and Bhat and Locascio, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to more easily and quickly identify the speaker, and to view the contribution that the speaker provides.
Claim 7: Burckart and Bhat and Locascio teach all the limitations of claim 4, above. From claim 1, Burckart and Bhat teach a searchable log that includes first text and second text and third text.
Locascio teaches “wherein identifying portions of the first text, the second text, and the third text that correspond to the one or more keywords includes identifying portions of the transcript comprises identifying portions of the transcript that correspond to speech spoken by one or more speakers where a mention is made of the speaker name (i.e. User Jennifer may wish to be notified each time her name is mentioned in any group-based audio/video connection taking place in a public group-based communication channel. In such an example, a notification request includes Jennifer's user identifier, her name (i.e., “Jennifer”), and Jennifer's user identifier (i.e., because she is the named user for which notification is requested) [Locascio 0135] note: Locascio teaches searchable transcripts that include speaker names. Locascio teaches names as “mentions” in the meeting/transcript. This means that the “mentioned” names are searchable and identifiable).”
One would have been motivated to combine Burckart and Bhat and Locascio, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to identify mentions of names, to more easily and quickly identify the speaker, and to view the contribution that the speaker provides.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13: Claim 13 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14: Claim 14 is similar in content and in scope to claim 7, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
George (US 20090099845 A1) listed on 892 is related to transcribing audio files, and indexing the transcripts to be searchable by keyboard.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights