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 § 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed an idea for generating summaries which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
The claim in the instant application include:
cause one or more neural networks to generate one or more summaries of a first portion of a text based, at least in part, on one or more second portions of the text.
Regarding “cause one or more neural networks to generate one or more summaries of a first portion of a text based, at least in part, on one or more second portions of the text”, it can be interpreted as a human can, by looking at two portions of text, generate a summary of the first portion based on the context of the second portion. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitation is mental processes.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of:
processor, memory; and one or more neural networks.
Regarding “processor, memory; and one or more neural networks”, It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., processor, memory; and one or more neural networks) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., processor, memory; and one or more neural networks) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g., processor, memory; and one or more neural networks).
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., processor, memory; and one or more neural networks) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding additional elements (e.g., processor, memory; and one or more neural networks) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 - 20, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 8 and 15, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process “generate …”, “combine …”, modify …”, “is …”, “are …”, “split …”, “transcribe …” and “comprise …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
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)(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 – 6, 8, 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weisz et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0210037), hereinafter referred as Weisz.
Regarding claim 15, Weisz discloses a system (Fig. 5) comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 5, #514); and
a memory (Fig. 5, #524) storing instructions that, if performed by the one or more processors, are to
cause one or more neural networks ([0044 – 0045], RNN) to generate one or more summaries of a first portion of a text based, at least in part, on one or more second portions of the text (Fig. 3, 305, [0098], “generating an ith summary, of the corresponding summaries, that summarizes the ith transcript portion (1<i≤N). The system can generate the ith summary by processing the ith transcript portion and (i-1)th summary as input, using the LLM (305i)”. Because (i-1)th summary is based on (i-1)th portion of the text, thus, generate summaries of ith (first) portion of a text based, at least in part, on (i-1)th (second) portion of the text).
Regarding claim 16 (depends on claim 15), Weisz discloses the system wherein the one or more neural networks are to generate the text based, at least in part, on an audio file ([0093], audio-based file).
Regarding claim 17 (depends on claim 15), Weisz discloses the system wherein the one or more circuits are to generate one or more prompts that comprise one or more summaries of the one or more second portions of the text to cause the one or more neural networks to generate the one or more summaries of the first portion of the text ([0100]).
Regarding claim 20 (depends on claim 15), Weisz discloses the system wherein the one or more circuits are to generate an audio transcript from a meeting recording ([0004, 0014, 0062]), and use the one or more neural networks ([0044 – 0045], RNN) to generate a summary of the audio transcript ([0098]).
Regarding claims 1 – 2, they are corresponding to claims 15 – 16, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 15 – 16.
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 1), Weisz discloses the processor wherein the one or more circuits are to generate one or more prompts to cause the one or more neural networks ([0044 – 0045], RNN) to store information (Fig. 5, storage 524) generated from the one or more second portions of the text ([0100]) and use the stored information to generate the one or more summaries of the first portion of the text ([0100]).
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Weisz discloses the processor wherein the one or more circuits are to combine two or more summaries of two or more portions of the text and cause the one or more neural networks to generate a summary of the combined two or more summaries ([0118], “generates an overall summary for the audio-based file based on the generated corresponding summaries”).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Weisz discloses the processor where the one or more circuits are to modify a transcript of audio to generate the text (Fig. 3, modify of audio to generate the summary text).
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Weisz discloses the processor wherein each of the first portion and the one or more portions of the text is a transcript of a portion of an audio track (Fig. 3, block 303, [0094 – 0097]).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, they are corresponding to claims 15 and 17, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 15 and 17.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 8), Weisz discloses the method where the one or more circuits are to: split an audio track into one or more audio track segments (Fig. 3, block 303, [0094 – 0097]); transcribe each audio track segment of the one or more audio track segments; and combine transcripts of the transcribed audio track segments to generate the text.
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 8), Weisz discloses the method wherein the one or more circuits are to: generate one or more transcripts from an audio track (Fig. 3, block 303, [0094 – 0097]); modifying each of the one or more transcripts (Fig. 3, 305, [0098], generate summary (modifying each of the one or more transcripts)); and combine each of the one or more modified transcript to generate the text ([0118], “generates an overall summary for the audio-based file based on the generated corresponding summaries”).
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) 7, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz in view of Rofouei et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0289407), hereinafter referred as Rofouei.
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 1), Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the processor wherein the one or more circuits are to cause the one or more neural networks to generate one or more summaries in a specified format.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rofouei discloses a method for generating summary (Fig. 2). In addition, Rofouei discloses the system causes the one or more neural networks to generate one or more summaries in a specified format ([0151]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and causes the one or more neural networks to generate one or more summaries in a specified format. The motivation for doing this is that user can see the summary in a personalized way.
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 8), Weisz discloses the method wherein the one or more circuits are to combine two or more summaries of two or more portions of the text and cause the one or more neural networks to generate a summary of the combined two or more summaries ([0118], “generates an overall summary for the audio-based file based on the generated corresponding summaries”).
However, Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein generate a summary in a format specified by a prompt.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rofouei discloses a method for generating summary (Fig. 2). In addition, Rofouei discloses the system generate a summary in a format specified by a prompt ([0151]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and generate a summary in a format specified by a prompt. The motivation for doing this is that user can see the summary in a personalized way.
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 8), Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the one or more circuits are to cause the one or more neural networks to generate a summary of the text in a format specified by a prompt.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rofouei discloses a method for generating summary (Fig. 2). In addition, Rofouei discloses the system cause the one or more neural networks to generate a summary of the text in a format specified by a prompt ([0151]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and cause the one or more neural networks to generate a summary of the text in a format specified by a prompt. The motivation for doing this is that user can see the summary in a personalized way.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisz in view of Aseniero et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0023037), hereinafter referred as Aseniero.
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 8), Weisz discloses the method wherein the one or more neural networks are to generate the text based, at least in part, on an audio track that records a meeting ([0004, 0014, 0044 – 0045, 0098 - 0100]).
However, Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the meeting is a multi-speaker meeting.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Aseniero discloses a system for generating visualizations of recorded meeting data (abstract). In addition, Aseniero discloses wherein the text is generated from a multi-speaker meeting (Fig. 2, [0102 – 0108]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and the meeting is a multi-speaker meeting. The motivation for doing this is that the Application of Weisz can be extended to cover more situations.
Regarding claim 18 (depends on claim 15), Weisz discloses the system where the one or more circuits are to transcribe an audio track into one or more segments ([0056]).
However, Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the system wherein combine transcripts of different audio track segments to generate the text.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Aseniero discloses a system for generating visualizations of recorded meeting data (abstract). In addition, Aseniero discloses the system wherein combine transcripts of different audio track segments to generate the text (Fig. 2, 288, [0107], combining transcripts of different audio track segments (different persons, and different timelines) to generate the text).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and combine transcripts of different audio track segments to generate the text. The motivation for doing this is that the user can see more text for conversation so that it is more convenient for user to see the whole picture.
Regarding claim 19 (depends on claim 15), Weisz fails to explicitly disclose the system wherein the text comprises timestamps, punctuations, and capitalizations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Aseniero discloses a system for generating visualizations of recorded meeting data (abstract). In addition, Aseniero discloses wherein the text comprises timestamps, punctuations, and capitalizations (Fig. 2, [0102 – 0108]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Weisz, and the text comprises timestamps, punctuations, and capitalizations. The motivation for doing this is that the text can cover broader range of categories so that the Application of Weisz can be extended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677