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 .
This application is in response to the application and the preliminary amendment filed on 16 February 2016.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-60 were originally filed.
Claims 21-60 were cancelled by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 2/16/24 has been accepted and entered.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/16/25 has been accepted and entered.
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 11-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “in response to user selection of a selected phrase in the transcript”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation of “querying … for a suggested phrase to replace the selected phrase with in the transcript” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “querying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually construct of new wording to replace existing wording.
Similarly, the limitation of “populating the edit interface with the suggested phrase” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “populating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down words in a designated area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a transcript of a natural language conversation and a summary of the natural language conversation based on the transcript generated by a machine learning model;
providing an edit interface in the GUI
querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrase.
The “providing” (displaying) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The graphical user interface in the providing limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the graphical user interface is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “providing a summary…generated by a machine learning model” and “querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrases” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generated by a machine learning model” and “querying the machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s) – graphical user interface perform the providing, select(ion),providing, querying, and populating steps. The graphical user interface in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing, select(ion),providing, querying, and populating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “providing” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a graphical user interface in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the graphical user to perform the receive, process/identify, generate, receive, and display(ed) steps 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “in response to user selection of a selected phrase in the summary”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation of “querying … for a suggested phrase to replace the selected phrase with in the transcript” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “querying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually construct of new wording to replace existing wording.
Similarly, the limitation of “populating the edit interface with the suggested phrase” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “populating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down words in a designated area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a transcript of a natural language conversation and a summary of the natural language conversation based on the transcript generated by a machine learning model;
providing an edit interface in the GUI
querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrase.
The “providing” (displaying) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The graphical user interface in the providing limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the graphical user interface is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “providing a summary…generated by a machine learning model” and “querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrases” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generated by a machine learning model” and “querying the machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s) – graphical user interface perform the providing, select(ion),providing, querying, and populating steps. The graphical user interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing, select(ion),providing, querying, and populating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “providing” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a graphical user interface in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the graphical user to perform the receive, process/identify, generate, receive, and display(ed) steps 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation of “receiving an error type…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “querying … for a suggested phrase” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “querying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually construct of new wording to replace existing wording.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “transmitting the selected phrase and error type…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The recitation of “querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrases” and “transmitting… to the machine learning model…” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “transmitting… to the machine learning model…” and “querying the machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation of “the suggest phrase is populated…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “populating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down words in a designated area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation of “the suggest phrase is presented. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, displaying/presenting information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “…a text field… is populated…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “populated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down words in a designated area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation of “…selected the selected phrase”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “returns the selected phrase …” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting/returns data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The recitation of “the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase…” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase …” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim(s) 6 and 14 ,the claim does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation of “…the selected phrase is generated”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “generated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing words with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitations of “transmitting the replacement phrase and error type…” and “receiving at least one updated section…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The recitation of “transmitting…the machine learning model” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “transmitting…the machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the limitation of “replacing the selected phrase”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding words to text with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
In addition, the limitation of “updating the summary”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding words to text with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 10, the limitation of “…selected the selected phrase”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “returns the selected phrase …” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting/returns data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The recitation of “the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase…” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase …” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 11, the limitation of “…provides the selected phrase…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 13, the limitation “…replacing the selected phrase…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “replacing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding words to text with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
In addition, the limitation “identifying sections…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining which texts contains a certain word.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 12, and 15-20 are eligible under 35 USC 101
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 5 and 10 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 5 recites the language/limitation “ wherein the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase…”. However, Claim 1 already was introduced stating that a user makes a selection of a “selected phrase”. It is unclear how both the user and the machine learning model would select the “selected phrase”. Furthermore, since claim 5 states that the “the selected phrase” is initially selected, it is further unclear if this “initial selection” is prior or after the user’s selection. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the language/limitation of Claim 5 as “wherein the machine learning model selects the selected phrase”
Claim 5 recites the language/limitation “returns the suggested phrase …having a second highest confidence level” in line 4. However, line 3 of Claim 5 discloses introducing the element/language “a highest confidence level”. If is unclear to the Examiner if the claimed “highest confidence level” and claimed “second highest confidence level' means that a “highest confidence level” is greater in confidence than a “second highest confidence level” (i.e. ranked differently) or if there are multiple values in a confidence level category (e.g. in a confidence level category/group there are values 10 , 20, 30 , such that all three values 10, 20 and 30 are considered in a same highest confidence level and a value of 20 could be considered one value of a “highest confidence level” (i.e. a “highest confidence level” value) and a value of 30 could be considered a second value in the highest confidence level (i.e. a “second highest confidence level” value). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the “second confidence level' being less in value than a “highest confidence level”,
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al (US20190122766, 2019) in further view of Skarbovsky (US 20180144747, 2018)
As per independent claim 1, Strader et al discloses a method comprising:
providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a transcript of a natural language conversation and a summary of the natural language conversation based on the transcript generated by a machine learning model; (FIG. 3, 0004-0005, 0014, 0042: transcript and note/summary generation and displayed)
providing an edit interface in the GUI; (0011: transcription supplement tools enable editing of these portions of the transcript, such as by displaying suggested alternative phrases, displaying corrected medical terminology, displaying suggestions for incomplete words, etc., and tools for accepting, rejecting or editing the transcript and the generated suggestions; 0047: editing interface displayed for replacing text)
querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrase to replace the selected phrase with in the transcript; (FIG 5: the phrase “Lipodrene” is not recognized as a name of a medication and the NER model of FIG. 1 generates two smart suggestions: Amlodipine and Lipozene (504 and 506) which are placed adjacent to the suspect term “Lipodrene.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the NER model had to be queried in order for the NER model to generate suggestions for replacing the incorrect text)
populating the edit interface with the suggested phrase. (0047: user accepts the suggestion, which will replace the incorrect phrase)
Furthermore, Strader discloses selecting a phrase in the transcript to be edited (0044: user selects words in the transcript and can edit these words) and also replacing incorrect phrases/text after they been identified in the transcript.(0047) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose in response to user selection of a selected phrase in the transcript, providing an edit interface in the GUI. However, Skarbovsky et al discloses in response to selecting a term/word of a displayed line of the transcript, an editing interface to replace the selected term/word is provided. (FIG 2D, 2E, 3A-B; 0049, 0055, 0057)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Strader with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Skarbovsky et al since it would have provided the benefit of an improved speech-to-text algorithm that is made more efficient through the feedback that the algorithm receives via received corrections (0005)
As per dependent claim 4, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Skarbovsky et al discloses the suggested phrase is presented in an action field in the edit interface, wherein a text entry field included in the edit interface is populated with the suggested phrase in response to receiving a selection of the action field(FIG 2B, 2D, 2E, 3A-B; 0049, 0055, 0057: discloses populating the text field with the selected replacement item/word )
As per independent claim 9, Claim 9 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Strader et al discloses a method comprising:
providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a transcript of a natural language conversation and a summary of the natural language conversation based on the transcript generated by a machine learning model; (FIG. 3, 0004-0005, 0014, 0042: transcript and note/summary generation and displayed)
providing an editing interface (0006, 0049, 0059, 0080: ability to edit the note, including the ability accept or reject suggestions for the note)
querying the machine learning model for a suggested phrase to replace the selected phrase; (FIG 5; 0080: the phrase “Lipodrene” is not recognized as a name of a medication and the NER model of FIG. 1 generates two smart suggestions: Amlodipine and Lipozene (504 and 506) which are placed adjacent to the suspect term “Lipodrene.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the NER model had to be queried in order for the NER model to generate suggestions)
populating the edit interface with the suggested phrase. (0080: user accepts the suggestion, which will replace the incorrect phrase)
Furthermore, Strader discloses a user selecting a phrase/text within the summary/note in which the note can be edited (0049, 0080) 0051 and FIG. 9 discloses another embodiment of selecting text in the note/summary. In addition, Strader discloses the ability to edit the note, including the ability accept or reject suggestions for the note. 0049 discloses reject (i.e. edit) the note which mean that is/in other words, such that rejects means editing the note. Thus, it appears an editing interface is provided some fashion in order to edit the note. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose in response to selecting a phrase/term…, providing an edit interface in the GUI. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Skarbovsky et al discloses in response to selecting a term/word of a displayed line of the transcript, an editing interface to replace the selected term/word is provided. (FIG 2B, 2D, 2E, 3A-B; 0049, 0055, 0057)
Thus, in conjunction with Strader, the combination of the Strader selecting text in the summary/note with the ability to edit and Skarbovsky explicitly providing an edit interface in response to selecting text would teach the limitation “in response to a user selection of a selected phrase in the summary, providing an edit interface in the GUI”.
As per dependent claim 12, Strader et al discloses in response to receiving a selection of the selected phrase in the summary, highlighting, in the GUI, a portion of the transcript used by the machine learning model to generate the selected phrase. (FIG 9; 0005, 0045, 0051: the user has clicked on the phrase “weight gain” 902 in the note region 314, and the corresponding portion of the transcript that is linked to the note phrase “weight gain” is shown highlighted on the same screen)
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Nelson et al (US 20200293616, 2020)
As per dependent claim 2, the cited art fails to specifically disclose receiving an error type for the selected phrase via the edit interface; and wherein querying the machine learning model for the suggested phrase includes: transmitting the selected phrase and the error type to the machine learning model to receive the suggested phrase as a tailored correction to the error type for the selected phrase. However, Nelson et al discloses particular mark-ups are placed onto text. The text associated with the mark-up and the mark-up is translated by a machine learning model to determine the meaning of the mark-up. (FIG 3B; 0056, 0088, 0096-0097) As a result, the machine learning model outputs a suggested edit to replace the text associated with the mark-up. (FIG 3C, 0056, 0115)The identified mark-up is viewed as an error type and the text associated with the mark-up is the selected text such that the machine learning model is able to identified the selected text is spelled wrong based on the mark-up and provided a suggest phrase that contains the correct spelling of the word (tailored to the selected text)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Nelson et al since it would have provided the benefit of automatically receiving and identifying content suggestions from meeting participants and incorporating such suggestions into the document. (0006)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Walker (20160335673, 2016)
As per dependent claim 3, Strader et al discloses the suggested phrase is populated in a text entry field included in the edit interface (FIG 5; 0047); however, fails to specifically discloses its “non-selectable text” However, Walker discloses here the suggested value is automatically populated into the free form data entry field, the entity search tool may present the suggested value as an overlay or background of the free form data entry field (e.g., gray text within a text entry field). (0098)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Walker since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing an visual cue prevents user errors and provides clarity about what actions are and are not available at a specific moment.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Roper et al (US 20240212676, EFD 12/22/22)
As per dependent claim 5, Strader et al discloses generating of the transcript in substantial real time with the rendering of the audio recording enables inspection of the transcript and verification of the accuracy of conversion of speech to text (0009) 0049 discloses “For example, the spoken phrase “felt worse this morning” (702) may have been muffled or poorly recorded and the speech to text converter model may have only a 54 percent confidence that this is what the patient spoke.” and “Suggested words or phrases that have high confidence levels (e.g. >80%) will ordinarily not be accompanied by confidence indicators, and words or phrases that have a low confidence level, e.g., <30%, would ordinarily not be suggested to the user. Thus, the confidence levels are only provided for suggested words and phrases with intermediate levels of confidence, say between 30 and 80 percent or between 30 and 70 percent.” However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase to represent a portion of the natural language conversation according to a highest confidence level out of a plurality of candidate phrases, and returns the suggested phrase based on the suggested phrase having a second highest confidence level out of the plurality of candidate phrases. However, Roper discloses wherein the machine learning model initially selected the selected phrase to represent a portion of the natural language conversation according to a highest confidence level out of a plurality of candidate phrases, and returns the suggested phrase based on the suggested phrase having a second highest confidence level out of the plurality of candidate phrases (0009: Specifically, when a text to speech conversion occurs, there are confidence levels associated with each word being converted. The word with the highest confidence value will be used in the transcription, where the alternative words with lower confidence values will be stored as metadata, associated with the selected high confidence word... Even though the word selected has the highest confidence, according to some model, the selected word may not be the correct word. Whereas one of the alternative words with a lower confidence value may have been the correct transcription of the speech. For example, the word “their” could be transcribed with confidence levels of: there—80%, their—75%, they're—48%, they are—2%; 0057: transcription engine 265 can rank the terms or recognized words by their confidence score. The term or recognized word with the highest confidence score can be added to the transcription while the remaining terms or recognized words can be linked to the term or recognized words with the highest confidence score and stored as metadata.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified cited art with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Roper since it would have provided the benefit of an improved speech-to-text algorithm that is made more efficient through the feedback that the algorithm receives via received corrections (0005)
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Li et al (US20210004432, 2021)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the selected phrase includes more or fewer words than the suggested phrase. However, Li et al discloses receiving a list of suggested replacement text segments wherein for the selected text segment “many of which have”, three suggestions may be provided which include “many which”, “most with”, and “many with”. (0033)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Li et al since it would have provided the benefit of improved systems and methods of intelligently identifying and suggesting rewrites for text segments. (0004)
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Wise et al (US20070118374, 2017)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the suggested phrase is generated based on a context solely identified from within the transcript. However, Wise et al discloses the suggested phrase is generated based on a context solely identified from within the transcript (0027, 0031, 0035)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited disclosed feature(s) of Li et al since it would have provided the benefit of improves the accuracy of the speech recognition engine by enabling the selection of more likely word candidates by the speech recognition engine by assigning higher probabilities to words associated with a particular topic than other words. (0032)
As per dependent claim 11, Strader discloses the machine learning model provides the selected phrase based on vocabulary found (FIG. 5; 0047) However, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Wise et al discloses provides the selected phrase based on vocabulary found in in the transcript outside of the selected phrase. (0027, 0031-0032, 0035)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strader et al in further view of Skarbovsky in further view of Hahn (US20230244848, 2023)
As per dependent claim 8, Strader et al discloses replacing the selected phrase in the transcript with a replacement phrase (FIG 5; 0047) However, the cited art fails to specifically say in response to replacing the selected phrase in the transcript with a replacement phrase: transmitting the replacement phrase to the machine learning model; and receiving at least one updated section for the summary based on the replacement phrase replacing the selected phrase in the transcript; and updating the summary according to the at least one updated summary section. However, Hahn discloses a new preview (form of a summary) being generated/created in response to an edited document of text.(0101) Hahn discloses a line of text being replaced that results in a changed preview being generated. The previews for a document are generated using techniques such as artificial intelligence or machine learning methods. Various machine learning methods, such as the TextRank Algorithm, latent semantic analysis, Luhn's summarization algorithm, the KL-Sum algorithm, or the