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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/10/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 1,2,5,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transcribing audio, standardizing the transcript and performing matching to determine confidence score. Such recited limitation can be performed mentally by a human using pen and paper, listening to a voice or audio and writing a transcript, standardizing and perform matching to determine confidence score. The recited limitation also recites a generic device such as “a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory ….” performing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited limitations does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations is merely directed towards the abstract idea without positively recited limitations indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2,5,9 recites limitations adding to the abstract idea, but does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application and/or indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10,14,15,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transcribing audio, standardizing the transcript and performing matching to determine confidence score. Such recited limitation can be performed mentally by a human using pen and paper, listening to a voice or audio and writing a transcript, standardizing and perform matching to determine confidence score. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited limitations does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations is merely directed towards the abstract idea without positively recited limitations indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 14-17 recites limitations adding to the abstract idea, but does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application and/or indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 18-19,23,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transcribing audio, standardizing the transcript and performing matching to determine confidence score. Such recited limitation can be performed mentally by a human using pen and paper, listening to a voice or audio and writing a transcript, standardizing and perform matching to determine confidence score. The recited limitation also recites a generic device such as “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device ...” performing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited limitations does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations is merely directed towards the abstract idea without positively recited limitations indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 19,23,26 recites limitations adding to the abstract idea, but does not include positively recited limitations integrating the abstract idea into practical application and/or indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,10,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Corfield (US Publication No.: 20140088962).
Claim 1, Corfield discloses
a computing device (Fig. 3) comprising a processor (Fig. 3, label 302) and a memory (Fig. 3, label 304); and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor (paragraph 35 discloses memory stores processing instructions to be executed by processor 302.), cause the computing device to at least:
receive an audio signal representing at least a spoken statement (Fig. 5, label 504,506);
receive a text statement (Fig. 5, label 502);
transcribe the audio signal into a transcript (Fig. 5, label 508);
standardize the transcript into a standardized transcript (Fig. 6 shows an evaluation module receiving data from memory such as the transcription file and the true text as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 7 shows the compensation module filtering the transcription file to delete artifacts of speech such as the transcription of certain phrases, for example, “ummm…” and the like. Paragraph 40 discloses the compensation module standardizes or normalizes the transcription file.); and
perform a sequence matching to determine a confidence score (Fig. 5, label 512,514 discloses an evaluation module comparing the transcribed file to the true text and generating an accuracy score. Paragraph 36 discloses “The transcribed file would be compared to the true text and if the transcribed file matched the true text exactly,” an accuracy score is calculated. For example, comparing each word of the transcription and the true text (sequence matching) as described in paragraph 36.), the confidence score representing a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript (paragraph 36 discloses the score resulting from the comparison indicates a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript.).
Claim 10, Corfield discloses
Obtaining a transcript of an audio signal representing at least a spoken statement (Fig. 5, label 508,506);
standardizing the transcript into a standardized transcript (Fig. 6 shows an evaluation module receiving data from memory such as the transcription file and the true text as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 7 shows the compensation module filtering the transcription file to delete artifacts of speech such as the transcription of certain phrases, for example, “ummm…” and the like. Paragraph 40 discloses the compensation module standardizes or normalizes the transcription file.); and
performing a sequence matching to determine a confidence score (Fig. 5, label 512,514 discloses an evaluation module comparing the transcribed file to the true text and generating an accuracy score. Paragraph 36 discloses “The transcribed file would be compared to the true text and if the transcribed file matched the true text exactly,” an accuracy score is calculated. For example, comparing each word of the transcription and the true text (sequence matching) as described in paragraph 36.), the confidence score representing a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript (paragraph 36 discloses the score resulting from the comparison indicates a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript.).
Claim 18, Corfield discloses
Obtain a transcript of an audio signal representing at least a spoken statement (Fig. 5, label 508,506);
standardize the transcript into a standardized transcript (Fig. 6 shows an evaluation module receiving data from memory such as the transcription file and the true text as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 7 shows the compensation module filtering the transcription file to delete artifacts of speech such as the transcription of certain phrases, for example, “ummm…” and the like. Paragraph 40 discloses the compensation module standardizes or normalizes the transcription file.); and
perform a sequence matching to determine a confidence score (Fig. 5, label 512,514 discloses an evaluation module comparing the transcribed file to the true text and generating an accuracy score. Paragraph 36 discloses “The transcribed file would be compared to the true text and if the transcribed file matched the true text exactly,” an accuracy score is calculated. For example, comparing each word of the transcription and the true text (sequence matching) as described in paragraph 36.), the confidence score representing a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript (paragraph 36 discloses the score resulting from the comparison indicates a likelihood that the text statement matches the standardized transcript.).
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) 9,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corfield (US Publication No.: 20140088962) in view of Radford et al (US Publication No.: 20240354521).
Claim 9, Corfield et al discloses text normalization or standardization of the transcript (Fig. 7 and paragraph 40), but fails to disclose all the recited limitations.
Radford et al discloses
Replace a number word from the transcript with a corresponding number integer (Paragraph 221 discloses detecting numeric expressions of numbers and replacing with Arabic numbers e.g. Ten thousand dollars => $1000.); and
Replace a symbol word from the transcript with a symbol character (Paragraph 228 discloses replace any markers, symbols, and punctuation characters with a space (symbol character).).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to simply substitute one well known element of text normalization as disclosed by Corfield et al with another well-known element of text normalization as disclosed by Radford et al so to yield predictable results of normalizing or standardizing text.
Claim 17, Corfield et al discloses standardization of a transcript (paragraph 36), but fails to discloses standardization comprises removing extraneous spacing and extraneous punctuation.
Radford et al discloses standardizing the transcript into the standardized transcript further comprises removing extraneous spacing (Paragraph 212 discloses standardization of transcript includes removing successive whitespace characters with a space and whitespace characters that comes before an apostrophe ‘..) and extraneous punctuation (paragraph 212 discloses standardization of transcripts includes removing commas, periods, etc.). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to simply substitute one well known element of text normalization as disclosed by Corfield et al with another well-known element of text normalization as disclosed by Radford et al so to yield predictable results of normalizing or standardizing text.
Claim(s) 6,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corfield (US Publication No.: 20140088962) in view of Thomson et al (US Publication No.: 20200175962).
Claim 6, Corfield discloses the audio signal is a first audio signal (Fig. 5, label 504,506), the spoken statement is a first spoken statement (Fig. 5, label 504,506), determining the accuracy or confidence score of the normalized transcript (paragraph 36), but fails to disclose the machine readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: determine, in response to performing the sequence matching, that the confidence score is less than a success threshold value and the confidence score is greater than a failure threshold value; and send, to an agent device, a message directing an agent to send to send a second audio signal representing at least a second spoken statement.
Thomson et al discloses the machine readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least (Fig. 1, 108): determine, in response to performing the sequence matching, that the confidence score is less than a success threshold value and the confidence score is greater than a failure threshold value (Paragraph 705 discloses determining accuracy or confidence score of transcripts includes comparing the accuracy to a threshold to determine whether the accuracy is greater or less than a threshold, wherein the threshold acts as a failure threshold and success threshold.); and
send, to an agent device, a message directing an agent to send to send a second audio signal representing at least a second spoken statement (Fig. 32a,b, transcription, where the transcription is presented to one or more users. (Paragraph 111) This indicates a message directing an agent or user. The agent or user may send more audio for transcribing (second audio signal representing at least a second spoken statement).). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Corfield’s transcription by incorporating accuracy of the threshold compared to a threshold and sending a message as disclosed by Thomson et al so to present the requested transcription, hence improving the user’s ability to access desired information.
Claim 15, Corfield discloses standardizing the transcript into the standardized transcript (paragraph 36), but fails to discloses standardization further comprises replacing a variant-form word to a standard form word.
Thomson et al discloses standardization of a transcript (Paragraph 348) comprising normalization of transcription includes denormalization such as replacing a variant form word to a standard form word (paragraph 348 discloses standardizing or denormalizing multiple spellings of “Kathy” into a standard form.). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify standardization as disclosed by Corfield with standardization as disclosed by Thomson et al so to yield predictable result of normalized or standardized transcription, hence providing an accurate and clean version of the transcript.
Claim 16, Thomson et al discloses standardizing the transcript into the standardized transcript further comprising replacing a contraction word from the transcript with corresponding non-contraction words (Paragraph 1020 discloses denormalization rules includes expand contractions or replacing contraction words with non-contraction words. Paragraph 348 discloses denormalization of a transcript.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,14,19,21-26 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.
Note: All rejections and/or objections must be overcome prior to placing the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Andrew C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights