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
In response to the Office Action mailed October 31, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on March 2, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Furthermore, when contemplating claim amendments, it is advised to review the prior art cited, for example Sjoberg ‘776 figures 7 and 8, Orsini ‘989, fig. 7, Cuthbert ‘322 figs. 1-15 and Hamaker ‘641 (fig. 1), just to list a few.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicants argue the claims are statutory under 101 since a computer hardware link cannot be a computer hardware link. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive, however, it is noted that a computer hardware link is generic processing. In addition, according to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., computer hardware link) such that it amounts 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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 claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s argue Step 2A Prong 2 and provides examples of limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Applicants also explain that the instant claims provide a solution to problems, thereby integrating the exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technical field. However, the steps which lead to the improvement and the improvement itself is not explicitly recited the claims. Although, Applicants point to what the courts have found, what the courts have found is not comparable to the current claim language. Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The specification nor the claims reflect the improvements claimed in the arguments. In the instant claims, the abstract idea results in an output of generic “information” that is not utilized in any particular fashion or for any particular purpose. It does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. While the claimed invention may have some use in technical fields, that use or implementation in particular technology or technological environment has not been recited in the claimed invention. Absent these recitations, the only claim elements that remain are generic computer components that do not qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing multiple languages, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, receiving a preselection of a language for a first speaker, wherein the preselection is received having a first panel configured to display an untranslated transcription in the language for the first speaker, (can be done by a user receiving different languages and displaying the untranslated portion), assigning one or more glossaries to the first speaker, wherein the one or more glossaries for the first speaker configure one or more servers to boost, filter, or replace transcribed terms transcribed for the first speaker (can be done by a user labeling glossaries), receiving, first audio content which originated from the first speaker (can be done by a user listening to someone speak), transcribing the first audio content for the first speaker into text in the language of the first speaker in a transcript (can be done by a user transcribing the data) and generating first altered text by altering, according to the one or more glossaries, the text of the transcript in the language of the first speaker (can be done by a user modifying the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements 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 claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as creating different lists, identifying offensive terms and replacing terms with non-letter characters, which is all mental processing and non-statutory.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Malcangio et al. (PGPUB 2020/0302126), hereinafter referenced as Malcangio in view of Fujita (USPN 5,612,872).
Regarding claim 1, Malcangio discloses a method and system, hereinafter referenced as a method carried out by one or more servers for managing a cloud-based meeting involving multiple languages, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first client device, a preselection of a language for a first speaker (language; p. 0040-0042);
assigning one or more glossaries to the first speaker, wherein the one or more glossaries for the first speaker configure one or more servers to boost, filter, or replace transcribed terms transcribed for the first speaker (library of vocabulary, abbreviates, synonyms, relevant jargon, etc.; p. 0039);
receiving, from a microphone at the first client device, first audio content which originated from the first speaker (user audio input; figure 5, element 402 with p. 0038);
transcribing the first audio content for the first speaker into text in the language of the first speaker in a transcript (transcribe/identify source and target language of text data; fig. 5, element 408 and 412; p. 0040-0043); and
generating first altered text by altering, according to the one or more glossaries, the text of the transcript in the language of the first speaker (altering the data; p. 0039), but does not specifically teach receiving, from a first client device, a preselection of a language for a first speaker, wherein the preselection is received in the first client device at a control panel having a first panel configured to display an untranslated transcription in the language for the first speaker, wherein a computer hardware link to a transcription engine is assigned to the first speaker for the language for the first speaker.
Fujita discloses a method receiving, from a first client device, a preselection of a language for a first speaker, wherein the preselection is received in the first client device at a control panel having a first panel configured to display an untranslated transcription in the language for the first speaker (original sentence), wherein a computer hardware link to a transcription engine is assigned to the first speaker for the language for the first speaker (translated sentence; fig. 14 with column 9, lines 5-40), to provide an effective way to review translations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to provide understanding, clarity and meaning of translated sentences.
Regarding claim 2, Malcangio discloses a method wherein the one or more glossaries includes a set of languages expected to be spoken during the cloud-based meeting (language of a chat; p. 0033, 0038, 0041-0045).
Regarding claim 3, Malcangio discloses a method wherein the one or more glossaries includes N languages of common languages that are spoken in the world, N being a positive integer (p. 0019, 0036-0037).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Malcangio discloses a method wherein the one or more glossaries includes a plurality of lists for each language in the set of languages, and each list of the plurality of lists for each language is at least one of:
a boost list including one or more of spoken words, spoken terms, spoken phrases, spoken passages, spoken names, spoken abbreviations with expansions, and spoken acronyms with expansions expected to be spoken during a meeting that can be used for replacement in the transcript to improve recognition results (library of vocabulary, abbreviates, synonyms, relevant jargon, etc; p. 0039);
a block list including one or more of offensive spoken words, offensive spoken terms, offensive spoken phrases, and offensive spoken passages expected to be spoken during a meeting that can be used to filter out from the transcript to avoid offending readers and listeners of speech synthesis; or
a correction list including one or more typed error words, terms, phrases and passages and their replacement for correcting common mistakes in a transcript or a translated transcript.
Regarding claim 5, Malcangio discloses a method wherein each list of the plurality of lists for each language is an initial list with standard words, terms, or phrases to improve speech recognition or transcription results.
Regarding claim 6, Malcangio discloses a method wherein at least one list of the plurality of lists for each language (language) is a user edited list to improve speech recognition or transcription results, and wherein the one or more glossaries are stored in a server associated with at least one login identification (verifier that verifies the quality of the translation and corrected accordingly; p. 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Malcangio discloses a method further comprising:
receiving, from a second client device, a preselection of a language for a second speaker (target language; fig. 5 element 414 with p. 0041-0043);
assigning one or more glossaries to the second speaker, wherein the one or more glossaries for the second speaker configure the one or more servers to boost, filter, or replace transcribed terms transcribed for the second speaker (library of vocabulary, abbreviates, synonyms, relevant jargon, etc; p. 0039);
receiving, from a microphone at the second client device, second audio content which originated from the second speaker (user audio input; figure 5, element 402 with p. 0038);
transcribing the second audio content for the second speaker into text in the language of the second speaker (transcribe/identify source and target language of text data; fig. 5, element 408 and 412; p. 0040-0043); and
generating second altered text by altering, according to the one or more glossaries, the text in the language of the second speaker (altering data; p; 0039).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcangio in view of Fujita and in further view of Bax (PGPUB 2019/0188258).
Regarding claim 7, Malcangio and Fujita disclose a method as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein the generating the altered text comprises: identifying one or more offensive words, terms, or phrases in text by using the one or more glossaries; and replacing the one or more offensive words, terms, or phrases with non-letter characters.
Bax discloses a method comprising identifying one or more offensive words, terms, or phrases in text by using the one or more glossaries (offensive item); and replacing the one or more offensive words, terms, or phrases with non-letter characters (replacing with symbols; p. 0052-0054), to mitigate offensiveness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to censor unwanted language.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcangio in view of Fujita and in further view of Mullins (PGPUB 2019/0068529), hereinafter referenced as Mullins.
Regarding claim 8, Malcangio and Fujita disclose a method as described above, but does not specifically teach further comprising: transmitting, to the first client device, the altered text for display in a speech bubble.
Mullins discloses a method comprising transmitting, to the first client device, the altered text for display in a speech bubble (fig. 8 with p. 0028, 0091), to provide a way to present translation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to generate and display augmented reality content.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcangio in view of Fujita and in further view of Pournasseh et al. (PGPUB 2005/0075858), hereinafter referenced as Pournasseh.
Regarding claim 10, it is interpreted and rejected for reasons as set forth above. In addition, Malcangio disclose a method carried out by one or more servers for managing a cloud-based meeting involving multiple languages, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first client device, a preselection of a first language for a first speaker (source language; fig. 5 element 408 with p. 0041-0043);
receiving, from a second client device, a preselection of a second language for a first listener/reader, the second language differing from the first language (different language; p. 0036-0037, 0042);
wherein the first glossary and the second glossary configure one or more servers to boost, filter, or replace transcribed terms transcribed for the first speaker and translated terms translated for the first listener/reader (transcribe/identify source and target language of text data; fig. 5, element 408 and 412; p. 0040-0043);
receiving, from a microphone at the first client device, first audio content which originated from the first speaker (user audio input; figure 5, element 402 with p. 0038);
transcribing the first audio content for the first speaker into transcribed text in the first language of the first speaker (transcribe/identify source and target language of text data; fig. 5, element 408 and 412; p. 0040-0043);
translating the transcribed text in the first language into translated transcribed text in the second language for the first listener/reader into a transcript (audio to text; fig. 5 with p. 0040-0043);
generating first altered text by altering, according to a first glossary, the transcribed text in the first language of the first speaker (altering data; p. 0039); and
transcribing the second audio content for the second speaker into text in the language of the second speaker (transcribe/identify source and target language of text data; fig. 5, element 408 and 412; p. 0040-0043).
Furthermore, Fujita discloses a method comprising receiving, from a first client device, a preselection of a language for a first speaker, wherein the preselection is received in the first client device at a control panel having a first panel configured to display an untranslated transcription in the language for the first speaker (original sentence), wherein a computer hardware link to a transcription engine is assigned to the first speaker for the language for the first speaker (translated sentence; fig. 14 with column 9, lines 5-40), to provide an effective way to review translations, but does not specifically teach assigning a first and second glossary.
Pournasseh discloses a method comprising assigning a first glossary to the first speaker and a second glossary to the first listener/reader (fig. 3 with p. 0006-0007, 0032-0033), to assist with localizing data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with effectively translating data.
Regarding claim 11, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Pournasseh discloses a method wherein the first glossary and the second glossary include a set of languages expected to be spoken (fig. 3 with p. 0006-0007, 0032-0033)
Regarding claim 12, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Pournasseh discloses a method wherein each of the first glossary and the second glossary includes N languages of common languages that are spoken in the world, N being a positive integer (fig. 3 with p. 0006-0007, 0032-00330.
Regarding claim 14, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above in claim 10. In addition, Malcangio discloses one server device including a processor device and a memory device coupled to the processor device (fig. 3, elements 206 and 202).
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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657