DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-32 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated due to addition of new claims 22-32.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22, 28-29,31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,070 (hereinafter referred to as Patent ‘070) in view of Brown (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0219150).
Claim 22, it recites limitation “receiving a hearing user (HU) voice signal as an assisted user (AU) and the HU participate in a call using AU and HU communication devices, respectively” functionally similar to limitation “receiving an HU voice signal as the AU and HU participate in a call using the AU and HU communication devices, respectively” as recited in claim 1 of Patient ‘070; claim 22 of the present invention recites “transcribing each HIU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment” functionally similar to limitation “transcribing HU voice signal segments into verbatim caption segments that accurately represent the words spoken by the HU to generate the voice signal segments” as recited in claim 1 of Patent ‘070; claim 22 of the present invention recites “analyzing the caption segments to identify a current topic” functionally similar to limitation “for at least a subset of the verbatim caption segments, processing the verbatim caption segments to identify intended communications (IC) wherein the IC is the communication intended by the HU upon uttering an associated one of the HU voice signal segments” as recited in claim 1 of Patent ‘070; and claim 22 of the present invention recites “transmitting the captions to the AU communication device to be presented via the display” functionally similar to limitation “presenting the verbatim caption via the AU communication device display for consumption” as recited in claim 1 of Patent ‘070.
Claim 1 of Patent ‘070 does not recite “transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device” as recited in claim 22 of the present invention.
However, in the similar field, Brown teaches transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device (Paragraphs 0080, 0255 visually providing subject of conversation/ discussion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Patent ‘070 claim 1 to include transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device as taught by Brown in order to “provide visual description of a subject of the parties' conversation” …”or provide other assistance to a hearing-impaired party” (Brown, Paragraph 0080).
Claim 28, rejected against clam 1 of Patent ‘070.
Claim 29, rejected against clam 1 of Patent ‘070.
Claim 31, rejected against clam 2 of Patent ‘070.
Claim 32, rejected against clam 1 of Patent ‘070.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22, 28, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelke (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0206808), and further in view of Brown (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0219150).
Regarding claim 22, Engelke teaches a method comprising:
receiving a hearing user (HU) voice signal as an assisted user (AU) and the HU participate in a call using AU and HU communication devices, respectively (Fig. 3 step 74, Fig. 11 step 362, Paragraphs 0071, 0111);
transcribing each HIU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment (Fig. 3 step 78-80, 0086-0088, Fig. 11 step 364, 370-374, Paragraphs 0018-0020, 0023, 0070-0080, 0111-0134 transcribing and generating verbatim and corrected segments); and
transmitting the captions to the AU communication device to be presented via the display (Fig. 3 step 82, 102, Fig. 11 step 366, Paragraphs 0071, 0073, 0111).
Engelke does not teach analyzing the caption segments to identify a current topic; and transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device.
However, in the similar field, Brown teaches analyzing the caption segments to identify a current topic; and transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device (Paragraphs 0080, 0255 transcription of conversation and visually providing subject of conversation/ discussion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Engelke to include analyzing the caption segments to identify a current topic; and transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device as taught by Brown in order to “provide visual description of a subject of the parties' conversation” …”or provide other assistance to a hearing-impaired party” (Brown, Paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 28, Engelke teaches wherein transcribing each HU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment includes generating verbatim caption segments for each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice segments (Paragraphs 0022-0023, 0070-0080, 0111-0134).
Regarding claim 31, Engelke teaches wherein transcribing each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice signal segments into the caption segment includes: providing each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice signal segments to an automated speech recognition system that generates a verbatim text caption (Fig. 2 items 60, 62, 64, Fig. 28 item 906, Paragraphs 0064-0066, 0223).
Regarding claim 32, Engelke teaches generating an enhanced caption segment corresponding to at least one caption segment (Paragraphs 0071, 0111 generating enhanced (corrected) caption).
Claims 22, 28, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romriell (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0123003), and further in view of Brown (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0219150).
Regarding claim 22, Romriell teaches a method comprising:
receiving a hearing user (HU) voice signal as an assisted user (AU) and the HU participate in a call using AU and HU communication devices, respectively (Paragraph 0026);
transcribing each HIU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment (Paragraphs 0026, 0031);
analyzing the caption segments to identify a current topic (Paragraphs 0031-0032 analyzing to identify topic of stooping at grocery store); and
transmitting the captions to the AU communication device to be presented via the display (Paragraphs 0027-0031 displaying speech recognition generated text caption) (Paragraphs 0016-0034 for complete details).
Romriell does not teach transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device.
However, in the similar field, Brown teaches transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device (Paragraphs 0080, 0255 transcription of conversation and visually providing subject of conversation/ discussion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Romriell to include transmitting the current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via a display of the AU communication device as taught by Brown in order to “provide visual description of a subject of the parties' conversation” …”or provide other assistance to a hearing-impaired party” (Brown, Paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 28, Romriell teaches wherein transcribing each HU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment includes generating verbatim caption segments for each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice segments (Paragraphs 0026-0031 each spoken word captioned).
Regarding claim 31, Romriell teaches wherein transcribing each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice signal segments into the caption segment includes: providing each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice signal segments to an automated speech recognition system that generates a verbatim text caption (Paragraphs 0004, 0026-0031 using speech recognition program).
Regarding claim 32, Romriell teaches generating an enhanced caption segment corresponding to at least one caption segment (Paragraphs 0029-0031 using correct text to enhance verbatim transcript).
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romriell and Brown as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Zilmer (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0007059).
Regarding claim 23, Romriell teaches obviously teaches the current topic is a first current topic corresponding to a first portion of the call; and wherein the captions (including current topic) are transmitted to the AU communication device to be presented on the display (Fig. 3 item 314, Fig. 5, topic of going to stop at grocery store), and analyzing the caption segments to identify a second current topic corresponding to a second portion of the call that is subsequent to the first portion of the call; and during a second portion of the call: transmitting the captions (including second topic) to the AU communication device to be presented via the display (Fig. 3 item 316, Fig. 5, topic of going to the party); and Brown teaches wherein the current topic is a first current topic corresponding to a first portion of the call; and wherein the current topic and the captions are transmitted to the AU communication device to be presented on the display (Paragraphs 0080, 0255 providing subject and its conversation transcript), but Romriell and Brown do not specifically teach analyzing the caption segments to identify a second current topic corresponding to a second portion of the call that is subsequent to the first portion of the call; and during a second portion of the call: transmitting the second current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via the display; and transmitting the captions to the AU communication device to be presented via the display.
However, in the similar field, Zilmer teaches analyzing the caption segments to identify a second current topic corresponding to a second portion of the call (each event (topic) with associated message object of conversation identifying different portion of conversation (different portion of call) that is subsequent to the first portion of the call (Fig. 3(C) items Object A….Object M etc.); and during a second portion of the call: transmitting the second current topic (Fig. 3A item 306, Paragraph 0061 caption/subject of conversation) to the communication device to be presented via the display; and transmitting the captions (Fig. 3A item 304, Paragraph 0061 conversation region) to the communication device to be presented via the display (Paragraphs 0034-0037, 0039, 0060-0085).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Romriell and Brown to include analyzing the caption segments to identify a second current topic corresponding to a second portion of the call that is subsequent to the first portion of the call; and during a second portion of the call: transmitting the second current topic to the AU communication device to be presented via the display; and transmitting the captions to the AU communication device to be presented via the display as taught by Zilmer in order to provide “a conversation region 304, and (optionally) an information region 306. The information region 306 may provide, e.g., a caption or subject for the conversation” (Zilmer, Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 24, Zilmer teaches wherein the second current topic indicates the beginning of the second portion of the call (Fig. 3(C), Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0066-0072 each message portion with its specific time).
Regarding claim 25, Zilmer teaches persistently presenting, by the AU communication device, the current topic and the captions in a location on the display that is spatially associated with the current topic (Fig. 3(C), Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0066-0072 multiple message portions persistent until scrolled).
Regarding claim 26, Zilmer teaches wherein the current topic is presented adjacent an upper edge of the display (Fig. 3(A) item 306) and the captions generated are presented in a scrolling fashion there below (Fig. 3(A) item 304).
Regarding claim 27, Zilmer teaches wherein the current topic is a first current topic corresponding to a first portion of the call; wherein the current topic and the captions are persistently displayed, by the AU communication device, in the location of the display during the first portion of the call; and further comprising: during a second portion of the call, persistently presenting, by the AU communication device, a second current topic and presenting the captions in a location on the display that is spatially associated with the second current topic (Figs. 3(A) displaying topic and associated conversation, Fig. 3(C), Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0060-0072 multiple message portions persistent until scrolled).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romriell and Brown as applied to claims 22, 28, and further in view of Wise (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0118373).
Regarding claim 29, Romriell obviously teaches processing the verbatim caption segment to identify an intended communication (IC), wherein the IC is the communication intended by the HU upon uttering an associated one of the HU voice signal segments (Paragraphs 0029-0031 processing incorrect transcription to identify correct words specifying the intent); and using the IC to generate an enhanced caption segment that is different than the associated verbatim caption segment (Paragraphs 0029-0031 using correct text to enhance verbatim transcript), but Romriell and Brown do not explicitly teach processing each verbatim caption segment to identify an intended communication.
However, in the similar field, Wise teaches processing each verbatim caption segment to identify an intended communication (Paragraphs 0016, 0019-0021, 0023-0024, 0032, 0037-0038 post processor identifying context/ intent from generated caption).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Romriell and Brown to explicitly process each verbatim caption segment to identify an intended communication as taught by Wise so that “an appropriate context associated with the text transcripts 22 is identified” (Wise, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 30, Romriell obviously teaches wherein transcribing each HU voice signal segment of a plurality of HU voice signal segments into a caption segment includes generating verbatim caption segments for each HU voice signal segment of the plurality of HU voice segments (Paragraphs 0026-0031 each spoken word captioned) and further comprising: generating an enhanced caption segment for at least a subset of the verbatim caption segments, wherein the enhanced caption segment for each verbatim caption segment includes text expressing the current topic as well as communication associated with the verbatim caption segment (Fig. 5 items 414, 416, 520 text expressing topic of going to stop at grocery store and associated verbatim caption); and transmitting the enhanced caption segments corresponding to the HU voice signal segments to the AU communication device for presentation via the display (Fig. 5), but Romriell and Brown do not explicitly teach using the current topic to generate an enhanced caption segment.
However, in the similar field, Wise teaches using the current topic to generate an enhanced caption segment (Paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0019-0021, 0023-0024, 0032, 0037-0038 using topic/context to generate correct text).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Romriell and Brown to use the current topic to generate an enhanced caption segment as taught by Wise in order to enable “the context based models “….“to identify incorrectly recognized words and identify corrections in the text transcripts” (Wise, Paragraph 0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 are allowed.
The prior art alone or in combination with other prior art fail to teach the invention as claimed in detail when the claims are considered as a whole.
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 HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694