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 .
Claims 35-49 are pending.
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.
Claims 35, 40, 45-46 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. (US Pub. 2017/0263248 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US Patent 10,249,207 B2).
Regarding Claims 35, 40 and 49, Gruber teaches a method (see Fig.1, Fig.8C and paragraph [0047]), comprising:
performing a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured audio input (see Fig.8B (810), paragraph [0221], paragraph [0225] and paragraph [0257], transcription of natural language input including voice input or dictation);
providing display of the recognized text data corresponding to the first voice input (see Fig.8B (810), paragraph [0221], paragraph [0225] and paragraph [0257], display of the transcription of the natural language input);
obtaining further voice inputs representative of a command directed to a selection of a language for a selected subset of the recognized text data (see Fig.8A, Fig.8KK, paragraphs [0259-0262] and paragraph [0299], edit command to translate a selected portion of the recognized text);
performing a second text recognition of the selected subset of the recognized text data using the selected language (see Fig.8JJ, Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL, paragraph [0259], paragraph [0261] and paragraph [0299], translating the selected portion of the recognized text for display);
modifying the selected subset of the recognized text data according to the selected language (see Fig.8JJ, Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL, paragraph [0259], paragraph [0261] and paragraph [0299], translating the selected portion of the recognized text);
and providing display of the modified text data (see Fig.8LL, paragraph [0259], paragraph [0261] and paragraph [0299], display translated text).
Gruber fails to teach wherein the first voice input is representative of a captured spoken query.
Solomon, however, teaches capturing a spoken query, converting the spoken query into text and correcting the speech recognition errors on the text or translating a slang in the query (see Col.6, Line 54 – Col.7, Line 16).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Gruber’s method the step for performing a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured spoken query. The motivation would be to enable the user of the digital assistant to edit, correct or translate a portion of the speech query input.
Regarding Claim 45, Gruber teaches an apparatus (see Fig.1 and paragraph [0047]), configured to:
perform a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured audio input (see Fig.8B (810), paragraph [0221], paragraph [0225] and paragraph [0257], transcription of natural language input including voice input or dictation);
provide display of a first recognized text corresponding to the first voice input (see Fig.8B (810), paragraph [0221], paragraph [0225] and paragraph [0257], displaying the transcription of the natural language input);
obtain further voice inputs representative of a command directed to a selection of a language for first recognized text (see Fig.8A, Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL, paragraph [0261] and paragraph [0299], edit command to translate the text);
perform a second text recognition of the selected subset of the recognized text data using the selected language (see Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL and paragraph [0299], translating the text for display);
modify the selected subset of the recognized text data according to the selected language (see Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL and paragraph [0299], translating the text for display);
and provide display of the modified text data (see Fig.8JJ, Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL and paragraph [0299], displaying the translated text).
Gruber fails to teach wherein the first voice input is representative of a captured spoken query.
Solomon, however, teaches capturing a spoken query, converting the spoken query into text and correcting the speech recognition errors on the text or translating a slang in the query (see Col.6, Line 54 – Col.7, Line 16).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Gruber’s method the step for performing a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured spoken query. The motivation would be to enable the user of the digital assistant to edit, correct or translate a portion of the speech query input.
Regarding Claim 46, Gruber further teaches wherein a recorded voice signal corresponding to the first voice input is used for the second text recognition using the selected language (see paragraph [0121] and paragraph [0130], the initial audio input could be from a recorded audio file or a recorded sound file).
Claims 36-37 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. (US Pub. 2017/0263248 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US Patent 10,249,207 B2), and in further view of An (US Patent 10,529,330 B2).
Regarding Claims 36 and 41, Gruber and Solomon teach the method of Claim 35 but fail to teach wherein an association is performed between a word of the recognized textual query and an identifier and wherein the association is visually represented by graphical elements or by a relative positioning of a representation of the identifier towards the position of the word when displayed on the screen.
An, however, teaches displaying an association between a word of the recognized text and an identifier (see Fig.6 (124) and Col.10, Line 4-21, custom character displayed being associated with foreign language words), and wherein the association is visually represented by graphical elements (see Fig.6 (20c,124) and Col.10, Line 4-21, custom character displayed being associated with foreign language words that can be selected when cursor is moved to the custom character on the screen).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 35 the step for providing an association between a word of the recognized textual query and an identifier, wherein the association is visually represented by graphical elements. The motivation would be to provide a matched foreign language word for a selected word to be translated, and enabling the user to select the matched foreign word on a display screen to replace the word to be translated.
Regarding Claims 37 and 42, Gruber further teaches wherein the first voice input is stored in a recorded voice signal comprising an association between a word and a corresponding subset of the recorded voice signal (see paragraph [0121] and paragraph [0130], the initial audio input could be from a recorded audio file or a recorded sound file that includes words to be translated), wherein the subset of the recorded voice signal corresponding to the words of the selected subset of the recognized text is used for the second text recognition using the selected language (see Fig.8JJ, Fig.8KK, Fig.8LL, paragraph [0259], paragraph [0261] and paragraph [0299], translating the selected portion of the recognized text for display).
Claims 38-39, 43-44 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. (US Pub. 2017/0263248 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US Patent 10,249,207 B2), and in further view of Dasgupta (US Patent 10,692,494 B2).
Regarding Claims 38, 43 and 47, Gruber teaches using multimodal input including selecting a corresponding icon displayed on a touchscreen (see paragraph [0201] and paragraph [0312]), but Gruber and Solomon fail to teach wherein the command directed to selection of a language is by selecting a corresponding icon displayed on a touchscreen.
Dasgupta, however, teaches selecting a language for text translation by making a selection on an object displayed on a display screen (see Fig.3H (340) and Col.7, Line 11-24).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 35 the step for making a selection of a language by selecting a corresponding icon displayed on a touchscreen. The motivation would be to be to make a selection of a target language for translation by selecting an object displayed on a display screen.
Regarding Claims 39, 44 and 48, Gruber teaches using multimodal input including pressing a pressing a button (see paragraph [0201] and paragraph [0312]), but Gruber and Solomon fail to teach wherein the command directed to selection of a language is by selecting a physical button.
Dasgupta, however, teaches selecting a language for text translation by making a selection on an object displayed on a display screen (see Fig.3H (340) and Col.7, Line 11-24).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 35 the step for making a selection of a language by pressing a physical button. The motivation would be to be to make a selection of a target language for translation by pressing a physical key from a device control panel.
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 35-37, 40-42, 45-46 and 49 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 35 and 40, the claims recite a method and apparatus comprising a processor wherein the method and apparatus include: “performing a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured audio input; providing display of the recognized text data corresponding to the first voice input; obtaining further voice inputs representative of a command directed to a selection of a language for a selected subset of the recognized text data; performing a second text recognition of the selected subset of the recognized text data using the selected language; modifying the selected subset of the recognized text data according to the selected language; and providing display of the modified text data.”
The limitations of the claims, 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 a "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitations in the claim can be performed in the human mind. This includes observation, evaluation and judgement. For example, the limitation for "performing a first text recognition of a first voice input representative of a captured audio input" can be done by a person evaluating an audio input and translating the audio input into text on paper. The limitation for "providing display of the recognized text data corresponding to the first voice input” can be done by a person writing the text translation on paper. The limitation for "obtaining further voice inputs representative of a command directed to a selection of a language for a selected subset of the recognized text data” can be done by a person listening to an instruction to translate a portion of the written text into a different language. The limitations for "performing a second text recognition of the selected subset of the recognized text data using the selected language; modifying the selected subset of the recognized text data according to the selected language; and providing display of the modified text data” can be done by a person translating the selected portion of the written text into a second language on paper. If the limitations of the claim, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 40 only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform the processing steps. The device is recited at a high-level of generality 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. Therefore, the claims are directed to an 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the processing steps 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. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 36-37, 41-42, 45-46 and 49, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claims 35 and 40 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654