DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Double Patenting
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 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 actual 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 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1, 16, 17, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,899,921. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in the aforementioned patent (i.e., the entire scope of one or more of the present claims fall within the scope of one or more of the claims of the aforementioned patent).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Religa et al., US 2023/0082729 A1, in view of Johnson et al., US 2018/0315428 A1.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Religa with Johnson renders obvious a method comprising:
Receiving, at a computing device, a transcription of an audio recording. Religa teaches a method that may be performed on a text document authored by a document authoring/editing application (e.g., Microsoft Word). Religa ¶¶ 21, 33. Religa does not explicitly state that the authored text document may be a transcription of an audio recording. However, nothing in Religa’s disclosure suggests that its disclosed method would be limited by the content of the text document. Nevertheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a document authoring/editing application, such as Microsoft Word, could readily be employed to produce a transcription of an audio recording. Furthermore, Johnson teaches the generation and presentation of a text document comprising a transcription of an audio recording. Johnson ¶ 159-160, figs. 15-16.
Associating one or more tags with each text section of a plurality of text sections, wherein each associated tag is extracted from text of the transcription. Religa teaches demarcating section breaks in a document and inserting labels corresponding to the demarcated sections. Religa ¶ 34. The labels may be generated based on the content of one or more paragraphs immediately following the respective section breaks. Id. ¶ 36.
Providing, for display on the computing device, a representation of the transcription and a scroller interface. Religa fig. 12, ¶¶ 92-94.
Wherein the scroller interface allows for navigation to each text section of the plurality of text sections based on user navigation to a tag associated with the text section. Religa teaches that selection of a section label may cause navigation to the respective section of the document. Religa ¶¶ 21, 94.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Religa’s graphical user interface for navigating a text document with Johnson’s generation of a transcription of an audio recording. Such a modification would increase usability by allowing a user to readily navigate a transcription document.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Religa discloses wherein the one or more tags are displayed for selection in the scroller interface without an associated timeline. Religa fig. 12, ¶¶ 92-94.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Religa discloses wherein only proximate tags to a current navigational position in the transcription are displayed for selection in the scroller interface. Religa fig. 12, ¶¶ 21, 92-94.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Religa discloses determining, for each text section of the plurality of text sections, a ranking of the one or more tags associated with the text section, wherein each tag displayed in the scroller interface is a highest-ranked tag for an associated text section. Religa ¶ 46.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Religa discloses wherein associating the one or more tags with each text section of the plurality of text sections comprises aggregating results from application of a first model and a second model, wherein the first model is an algorithmic model, and wherein the second model is a machine learning model. Religa teaches that the section break classification module may be an algorithmic (“rule-based”) model. Religa ¶ 46. Religa teaches the section label classification module may be a machine learning model. Id. ¶ 45. The results from the two modules may be aggregated as part of the process of associating a tag with a text section. Id. ¶ 50.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, the combination of Religa with Johnson renders obvious wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify contextually relevant tags by taking the transcription as input. Religa teaches taking a text document as input. Religa ¶ 78. Religa does not explicitly state that the text document may be a transcription. However, as explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a document authoring/editing application, such as Microsoft Word, could readily be employed to produce a transcription of an audio recording. Furthermore, Johnson teaches the generation and presentation of a text document comprising a transcription of an audio recording. Johnson ¶ 159-160, figs. 15-16.
Claim 19 is drawn to an apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 20 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Religa et al., US 2023/0082729 A1, in view of Johnson et al., US 2018/0315428 A1, further in view of Gibson, US 5,526,480 A.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Religa with Gibson renders obvious wherein the scroller interface comprises a scrollbar with an annotation displayed for each tag associated with a text section of the plurality of text sections. Religa teaches a graphical user interface displaying a document and labels for each of multiple sections. Religa fig. 12, ¶¶ 92-94. Religa teaches that the document is scrollable. Id. ¶¶ 21, 94. Religa does not explicitly disclose a scrollbar. However, Gibson teaches a graphical user interface for navigating textual content that includes a scrollbar with labels corresponding to sections of the content. Gibson figs. 3a, 3b.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Religa’s graphical user interface for navigating a text document with Gibson’s use of a scrollbar with labels corresponding to sections of content. Such a modification would increase usability by allowing a user to easily access portions of content.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, the combination of Religa with Gibson renders obvious wherein the annotation displayed for each tag is positioned relative to the scrollbar based on a timestamp of the text section associated with the tag. Gibson teaches positioning the labels on the scrollbar relative to time codes. Gibson 1:64-2:11, 6:23-36.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Religa et al., US 2023/0082729 A1, in view of Johnson et al., US 2018/0315428 A1, further in view of Taboada et al., US 2007/0061755 A1.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Religa with Taboada renders obvious wherein the one or more tags are displayed for selection in the scroller interface in a dropdown list. Religa teaches displaying section labels in a scroller interface for navigating to a corresponding location. Religa fig. 12, ¶¶ 92-94. Religa does not explicitly disclose displaying the section labels in a dropdown list. However, Taboada teaches displaying a dropdown navigation menu with section labels for selection. Taboada fig. 5 (dropdown navigation menu 505), ¶¶ 38-41.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Religa’s graphical user interface for navigating a text document with Taboada’s use of a dropdown navigation menu. Such a modification would increase usability by allowing a user to easily “jump” to portions of content. See Taboada ¶ 2.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Religa et al., US 2023/0082729 A1, in view of Johnson et al., US 2018/0315428 A1, further in view of Stuart et al., US 2016/0170595 A1.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Religa does not explicitly disclose, but
Stuart discloses in response to user navigation to a particular tag, highlighting text corresponding to the particular tag in the representation of the transcription. Stuart teaches highlighting the text of a tag associated with a section of text in response to a user selecting the tag. Stuart ¶ 59, fig. 3.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Religa’s graphical user interface for navigating a text document with Stuart’s use of a dropdown navigation menu. Such a modification would increase usability by allowing a user to readily that a tag has been selected.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ishikawa, US 5,506,951 A, discloses a graphical user interface comprising a scroll bar with jump tags.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171