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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that Applicant has amended the claims to broaden their scope. As a result, prior art previously cited by the Examiner appears to be applicable to the currently presented claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to the claim(s), the prior art of record fails to disclose singly or in combination or render obvious all the limitations of the claim(s).
The closest prior art relating to Applicant' s claimed invention is:
US 20060026003 A1 Carus; Alwin B. et al.
US 20190279622 A1 Liu; Yu et al.
US 20150331941 A1 Defouw; Gregory P. et al.
US 20090132254 A1 Fitzgerald; Timothy et al.
US 11258750 B2 Marche; Stephane et al.
Carus discloses a system and method is disclosed for Report Confidence Modeling (RCM) including automatic adaptive classification of ASR output documents to determine the most efficient document edit workflow to convert dictation into finished output. The RCM according to the present invention may include a mechanism to predict recognition accuracy of a document generated by an ASR engine. Predicted accuracy of the document allows an ASR application to sort recognized documents based on their estimated accuracy or quality and route them appropriately for further processing, editing and/or formatting. Figure 1 discloses conditionally transcribing or requiring a user to edit a dictated report based upon a confidence threshold.
Liu discloses a method for speech recognition dictation and correction, and a related system. The disclosed method is implemented in a system including a terminal and a server, which includes transforming a speech signal received by the terminal into a speech recognition result. A speech setting is determined according to the speech recognition result. In response to an explicit command setting in which the speech recognition result contains a trigger word, the speech recognition result is decomposed into the trigger word and a command. A first speech recognition result is modified to form an edited speech recognition input according to the command. The edited speech recognition input is displayed on a user interface of the terminal. Accordingly, the speech recognition correction is achieved by speech interaction. Figure 3 discloses analyzing a voice input against a threshold to determine whether or not to require a user to re-input.
Defouw discloses systems and methods for analyzing a plurality of audio files corresponding to text-based news stories and received from a plurality of audio file creators are configured to (i) compare quality and/or accuracy metrics of individual audio files against corresponding quality and/or accuracy thresholds, and (ii) based on the comparison: (a) accept audio files meeting the quality and/or accuracy thresholds for distribution to a plurality of subscribers for playback, (b) reject audio files failing to meet one or more certain quality and/or accuracy thresholds, (c) remediate audio files failing to meet certain quality thresholds, and (d) designate for human review, audio files failing to meet one or more certain quality and/or accuracy thresholds by a predetermined margin. Figure 3B discloses comparing the text of a converted audio file to a source text to determine a word match percentage. Said word match percentage is compared against multiple thresholds (approve and reject thresholds) to determine workflow (approve, review, reject).
Fitzgerald discloses a system and method for automatically routing a diagnostic interpretation from diagnostic data received from a diagnostic source. The diagnostic interpretation is produced automatically using a voice recognition system. Along with the transcription of the interpretation, the voice recognition system returns a level of confidence of the voice recognition. Based on this level of confidence, the system automatically routes the transcribed interpretation to the appropriate destination for further processing. Figure 2 discloses determining a quality level (low, average, high) of user dictation in order to determine workflow (correction, draft, report).
Marche discloses a communication system for automatically choosing a communication modality from a plurality of communication modalities for use for communication between distant communication entities is provided. The communication system includes a controller configured to: receive a message in the form of one of a first plurality of modalities from a message originator for transmission to a message recipient and select at least one modality for sending the message to the message recipient. To select the controller is configured to: determine the existence of any predetermined vehicle context requirements, predetermined static requirements, predetermined communication service provider requirements, communication context requirements, message recipient preferences, and message originator preferences; and make the selection based on those requirements and preferences. The controller is further configured to convert the received message to the selected modality and cause the message to be transmitted to the message recipient. Figure 2 discloses determining whether voice recognition meets a certain confidence level and routing or informing a user based on said determination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by US 20090132254 A1 to Fitzgerald; Timothy et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1, 19, 20
Fitzgerald discloses an electronic device (see at least Fig. 1 and 0026-0031),
comprising: one or more processors (0026-0031 - Certain embodiments of the present invention may be practiced in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers having processors);
a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (0026-0031 - Certain embodiments of the invention are described in the general context of method steps which may be implemented in one embodiment by a program product including machine-executable instructions, such as program code, for example in the form of program modules executed by machines in networked environments):
receiving, from a user, a speech input including a spoken message for transmission to another user (Fig. 2 – 220);
obtaining a textual representation of the spoken message (Fig. 2 – 240);
in accordance with a determination that a first criterion is met: transmitting the textual representation (Fig. 2 – 250, 280, 285);
and in accordance with a determination that the first criterion is not met: transmitting the textual representation after a condition is satisfied (Fig. 2 – 250, 270, 275 OR 250, 260, 265. The Examiner notes that in either case, the High quality threshold is not met and a second and third threshold is used to determine Average or Low quality of the transcription).
Fitzgerald further discloses:
A method corresponding to the electronic device of claim 1 (Fig. 2), as required by claim 19; and
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (0026-0031), as required by claim 20.
Re: Claim(s) 2
Fitzgerald discloses wherein the textual representation is transmitted in accordance with a determination that a second criterion is met (Fig. 2 – 250, 270, 275),
and the first criterion and the second criterion are based on satisfaction of one or more transmission confidence thresholds (Fig. 2 – 260, 270, 280 – Low, Average, and High thresholds).
Re: Claim(s) 3
Fitzgerald discloses wherein the first criterion includes a determination whether at least one of a user-specific confidence level and a message-specific confidence level satisfies a first transmission confidence threshold (Fig. 2 – transcription quality = High),
and the second criterion includes a determination whether at least one of the user-specific confidence level and the message-specific confidence level satisfies a second transmission confidence threshold (Fig. 2 – transcription quality = Average);
wherein the first transmission confidence threshold is higher than the second transmission confidence threshold (Fig. 2 – 280 and 270. High versus Average (i.e.; High would be of a higher threshold than the threshold for Average).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights