DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 17, 25 and 31 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.
Claims 17, 25 and 31 recite that the given grapheme is easier to pronounce than the phrase. The term “easier” with respect to pronunciation is relative to an individual speaking is indefinite.
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 6 and 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claims 6, 20 and 26 are independent claims directed to a machine translator. Products and Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of matching users to an application can be done mentally.
accessing stored phrase data, grapheme data, and association data; (data storage)
receive one or more audio signals; (data transfer)
recognize one or more spoken words; (observation)
determine whether a given recognized spoken word corresponds to a grapheme; (evaluation) and
if so, transmit one or more of the phrases. (data transfer)
The steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “storage devices” and “computers”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that the steps are performed by “storage devices” and “computers”.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional element, by “storage devices” and “computers”, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of a machine translator with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of an electronic method of matching.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-19, 21-25 and 27-31 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 13, 16-21, 24-27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leydon (AU 2019205995, from the 1/25/24 IDS).
Leydon shows,
In regards to claims 6, 20 and 26
accessing (translation data store 210):
phrases that each comprise one or more words,
graphemes, and
associations that each associate one or more of the phrases and one or more of the graphemes;
(Pages 42-44, table 1 provides examples of how the transformation module 208 works. The right side includes phrases. The left side includes graphemes. For example, “brb” has three graphemes. Each letter is a grapheme. The corresponding phrase (top of page 43) is “be right back” Another example is the number “9”, which corresponds to the phrase “parents watching over shoulder”. The corresponding parts of the table are considered to be associations that each associate one or more of the phrases and one or more of the graphemes.)
receiving one or more audio signals from a user;
recognizing one or more spoken words based at least on the received audio signals;
determining that a given recognized spoken word corresponds to a given grapheme;
identifying a phrase based at least on the given grapheme and one or more of the associations; and
transmitting the identified phrase to one or more different users.
(paragraph [0338], “In various embodiments, the systems and methods described herein utilize voice translation or voice recognition technology to translate audible speech in one language to another language for users of a group voice chat system. The systems and methods may be implemented for chatspeak in which a speech-to-text transcribing system transcribes user chatspeak into text, this text is then transformed to plain speak (e.g., non-chatspeak)”
The speech-to-text is considered to be the receiving and recognizing one or more spoken words. Table 1, from above, shows by example determining and identifying a phrase based at least on the given grapheme and one or more of the associations.
The sending of the transformed non-chatspeak to users of a group voice chat system is considered to be transmitting the identified phrase to one or more different users)
In regards to claims 13, 21 and 27,
wherein one or more of the associations are predefined by a developer of a game. (paragraph [0147], “For example, where the CTT system 114 is utilized in conjunction with a chat system associated with an MMO game, the translation data store 210 may be populated (e.g., by the operator of the CTT system 114) with (transformed and untransformed) translations relating specifically to the MMO game.”)
In regards to claims 16, 24 and 30,
wherein the given grapheme has fewer syllables than the phrase. (From above, the number “9”, which corresponds to the phrase “parents watching over shoulder” has fewer syllables.)
In regards to claims 17, 25 and 31,
wherein the given grapheme is easier to pronounce than the phrase. (From above, the number “9”, which corresponds to the phrase “parents watching over shoulder” is easier to pronounce.)
In regards to claim 18,
wherein the recognized spoken word comprises a number. (From above, the number “9” is a number.)
In regards to claim 19,
wherein transmitting the identified phrases comprises appending an appellation to the phrase. (Figure 24, “yo wasup zack” has the name zack added to a phrase.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 15, 22, 23, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leydon (AU 2019205995, from the 1/25/24 IDS) in view of my acronym dictionary (NPL).
Leydon shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying that the associations are predefined by the user or by one or more of the different users.
my-acronym dictionary teaches, page 3, that once a user logs in they can add new acronyms belonging to existing or new categories.
Based on the teaching of my-acronym dictionary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Leydon invention to incorporate that all users can add new entries into the association database in order to provide efficient new chatspeak terms as newer terms become available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/15/25, are not persuasive.
In regards to 35 USC 101, the modifications to the claims do not resolve the 101 issue. The claims input data, match data and transmit data.
In regards to art, applicant asserts that Leydon does not teach or suggest “determining that a given recognized spoken word corresponds to a given grapheme’”, “identifying a phrase based at least on the given grapheme and one or more of the associations,” and “transmitting the identified phrase to one or more of the other users,”. The examiner does not concur. The rejection has been modified to spell out how these limitations are met.
Applicant asserts that Leydon does not teach or suggest identifying phrases based on “one or more tags, wherein each tag comprises at least part of one word,” as recited by amended claim 6. This is a moot point since the “tags” have been removed from amended claim 6.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715