DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on July 12, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 July 12, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, at [0034], it reads “FIG.6A5 illustrates”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “FIG.6A illustrates”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1, reads “wherein customized OS feature”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “wherein the customized OS feature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the dictation component " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 14, and therefore they inherit this rejection also.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A medical dictation application configured to operate on a computing device comprising:
a dictation component; and
a customized operating system (OS) feature in communication with the dictation component,
wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize a shared authentication process of the medical dictation application,
wherein the customized OS feature is inaccessible to a user device prior to authentication of the user device with the medical dictation application utilizing the shared authentication process.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize a shared authentication process of the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services,
“wherein the customized OS feature is inaccessible to a user device prior to authentication of the user device with the medical dictation application utilizing the shared authentication process” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services, and specifically does not allow just anybody to use his services until a certain degree of authentication has been determined.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
medical dictation application
a computing device
a dictation component
a customized operating system (OS)
a user device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device within a first software application, a request to access a keyboard extension of a medical dictation application,
wherein the keyboard extension is accessible within a user interface of the first software application and in communication with a dictation component of the medical dictation application;
receiving, at an interface to the keyboard extension, a voice command,
wherein the voice command includes a dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation within the first software application; and
inserting the text into the dictation within the first software application.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“receiving, from a user device within a first software application, a request to access a keyboard extension of a medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a person request dictation services,
“wherein the keyboard extension is accessible within a user interface of the first software application and in communication with a dictation component of the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services, and specifically does not allow just anybody to use his services until a certain degree of authentication has been determined,
“receiving, at an interface to the keyboard extension, a voice command” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a person request dictation services,
“wherein the voice command includes a dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation within the first software application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a person request dictation services followed by the actual dictation desired,
“inserting the text into the dictation within the first software application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing dictation services.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a computer
a user device
a first software application
a keyboard extension
a dictation component
an interface
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A computer implemented method for medical dictation comprising:
authorizing a user device for access to a dictation application;
launching the dictation application based on a command received from a user interface (UI) feature via a second application different from the dictation application,
wherein the UI feature is accessible in both the dictation application and the second application;
receiving voice commands at the dictation application;
translating the voice commands into text by the dictation component; and
transmitting the text to the second application via the UI feature.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“authorizing a user device for access to a dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services, and specifically does not allow just anybody to use his services until a certain degree of authentication has been determined,
“launching the dictation application based on a command received from a user interface (UI) feature via a second application different from the dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person agreeing to provide dictation services,
“wherein the UI feature is accessible in both the dictation application and the second application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services, and specifically does not allow just anybody to use his services until a certain degree of authentication has been determined,
“receiving voice commands at the dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to the other person dictate,
“translating the voice commands into text by the dictation component” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing dictation service manually,
“transmitting the text to the second application via the UI feature” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing dictation service manually and sending the results electronically.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
A computer
a second application
a user interface (UI)
a dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A method for medical dictation comprising:
launching a medical dictation application by selecting a user interface (UI) feature accessible within a second application,
wherein the second application is different from the medical dictation application;
receiving input by the medical dictation application via the UI feature;
translating the input into medical text by the medical dictation application;
providing the medical text to the UI feature; and
transmitting the medical text to a field within the second application via the UI feature.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“launching a medical dictation application by selecting a user interface (UI) feature accessible within a second application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person agreeing to provide dictation services,
“receiving input by the medical dictation application via the UI feature” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to the other person dictate,
“translating the input into medical text by the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing dictation service manually,
“providing the medical text to the UI feature” in the context of this claim encompasses a person inputting text,
“transmitting the medical text to a field within the second application via the UI feature” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing dictation service manually and sending the results electronically.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a medical dictation application
a user interface (UI)
a second application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the customized OS feature is a keyboard extension,
wherein the keyboard extension provides at least one dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation responsive to a voice command provided using the keyboard extension.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the keyboard extension provides at least one dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation responsive to a voice command provided using the keyboard extension” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person dictate and hearing a shortcut command for specific text to be entered, and then entering that text manually on a keyboard.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the customized OS feature
a keyboard extension.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein an interface to the keyboard extension at the user device is persistent, such that the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein an interface to the keyboard extension at the user device is persistent, such that the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed” in the context of this claim encompasses a person persistently continues to take dictation until the other person says to stop or until some other event such as a timer or paid fee period expires.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
an interface
the keyboard extension
the user device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application,
wherein the shared data includes patient data.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person,
“wherein the shared data includes patient data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person, where the data is personal patient data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the customized OS feature
the dictation component
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application,
wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person and with various generic computer components being used,
“wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system” in the context of this claim encompasses a person accessing an external database, such as a medical records database.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the customized OS feature
the dictation component
an external medical system
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein a second application separate from the medical dictation application is in communication with the customized OS feature.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein a second application separate from the medical dictation application is in communication with the customized OS feature” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person and with various generic computer components being used.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the customized OS feature
the second application
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the text is inserted into the dictation by copying text from the interface to the keyboard extension within the medical dictation application to the first software application using a cursor position determined with the request to access the keyboard extension of the medical dictation application.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the text is inserted into the dictation by copying text from the interface to the keyboard extension within the medical dictation application to the first software application using a cursor position determined with the request to access the keyboard extension of the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a cursor to insert text at a given position.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a keyboard extension
the first software application
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is displayed within the medical dictation application responsive to authenticating the user device at the medical dictation application.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is displayed within the medical dictation application responsive to authenticating the user device at the medical dictation application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person who is able to provide dictation services, and who can receive input from another person, who is selective as to which individuals will be allowed his dictation services, and specifically does not allow just anybody to use his services until a certain degree of authentication has been determined, and upon deciding to proceed then going ahead and using a keyboard.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a user device
a keyboard extension
an interface
a medical dictation application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data,
wherein the method further comprises
accessing, by the keyboard extension responsive to the voice command, the shared data.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person and with various generic computer components being used,
“accessing, by the keyboard extension responsive to the voice command, the shared data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person accessing an external database, such as a medical records database.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the keyboard extension
the dictation component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data,
wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person freely sharing data with the other person and with various generic computer components being used,
“wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system” in the context of this claim encompasses a person accessing an external database, such as a medical records database.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the keyboard extension
an external medical system
the dictation component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is persistent, such that the interface to the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is persistent, such that the interface to the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed” in the context of this claim encompasses a person persistently continues to take dictation until the other person says to stop or until some other event such as a timer or paid fee period expires.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the keyboard extension
the interface
the user device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the keyboard extension extends a keyboard of the user device,
wherein the voice command, when received, is not shared with the keyboard of the user device or additional extensions to the keyboard of the user device.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the keyboard extension extends a keyboard of the user device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using an extended keyboard,
“wherein the voice command, when received, is not shared with the keyboard of the user device or additional extensions to the keyboard of the user device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person specifically not sharing the voice command with any other generic computer component.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the keyboard extension
the keyboard
additional extensions
the interface
the user device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the UI feature is further accessible in a third application different from the dictation application and the second application.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the UI feature is further accessible in a third application different from the dictation application and the second application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person accessing certain generic computer components from other generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the UI feature
a third application
the dictation application
the second application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
saving a cursor location of user activity within the second application; and
transmitting the text to the saved cursor location.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“saving a cursor location of user activity within the second application; and transmitting the text to the saved cursor location” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a cursor to insert text at a given position.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the second application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the UI feature is a browser extension and the second application is a web browser.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the UI feature is a browser extension and the second application is a web browser” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using generic computer components and ensuring to include use of the specified items.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the UI feature
a browser extension
the second application
a web browser.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the UI feature is accessible and usable in both the medical dictation application and the second application.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the UI feature is accessible and usable in both the medical dictation application and the second application” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring all the generic computer components are compatible with one another.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the UI feature
the medical dictation application
the second application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the UI feature is a keyboard interface for receiving user inputs to a computing device on which the medical dictation application and the second application are operating.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the UI feature is a keyboard interface for receiving user inputs to a computing device on which the medical dictation application and the second application are operating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring all the generic computer components are compatible with one another, and using generic computer components and ensuring to include use of the specified items.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the UI feature
a keyboard interface
a computing device
the medical dictation application
the second application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US Patent Pub. No. 20170344948 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar teaches a computer implemented method (Kumar in [0035] teaches the client interface application and the EMR coordination server communicate as client and server computers, and uses a medical dictation interface and control)
comprising:
receiving, from a user device within a first software application, a request to access a keyboard extension of a medical dictation application (Kumar in [0029] teaches a user touches one of the spaces, and an on-screen keyboard pops up for entry of the letters and numerals, and in [0035] teaches using a medical dictation service),
wherein the keyboard extension is accessible within a user interface of the first software application and in communication with a dictation component of the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches requiring that a physician be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data, and the credentials and/or other authentication information can be communicated, via the communications network, to the authentication subsystem of the EMR coordination server (e.g., via the EMR proxy subsystem), and in [0035] teaches using a medical dictation service, and using a medical dictation interface and control);
receiving, at an interface to the keyboard extension, a voice command (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear, and in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field),
wherein the voice command includes a dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation within the first software application (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field);
and
inserting the text into the dictation within the first software application (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is displayed within the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear)
responsive to authenticating the user device at the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches requiring that a physician be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data (Kumar in [0027] teaches a physician may be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data (shared data)),
wherein the method further comprises accessing, by the keyboard extension responsive to the voice command, the shared data (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the keyboard extension and the dictation component utilize shared data (Kumar in [0027] teaches a physician may be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data (shared data)),
wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system (Kumar in [0027] teaches upon successful login (or upon otherwise accessing a schedule interface screen), embodiments can submit a schedule request to a local schedule store, a remote schedule store at the EMR coordination server, one or more remote schedule stores in one or more EMR servers).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20090089886 A1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a medical dictation application (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a medical dictation interface and control)
configured to operate on a computing device comprising (Kumar in [0035] teaches the client interface application and the EMR coordination server communicate as client and server computers):
a dictation component (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a medical dictation service);
and
a customized operating system (OS) feature in communication with the dictation component (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear),
wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize a shared authentication process of the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches using a medical application which requires authentication such as a password),
wherein the [customized OS feature is inaccessible to a user device prior to] authentication of the user device with the medical dictation application utilizing the shared authentication process (Kumar in [0027] teaches requiring that a physician be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data).
Kumar does not teach, however Cheng teaches
wherein the customized OS feature is inaccessible to a user device prior to authentication [of the user device with the medical dictation application utilizing the shared authentication process] (Cheng in 0034] teaches when locked a keyboard (customized OS feature) is disabled so the user is totally restricted from changing the settings, and the user has to unlock the keyboard in order to gain further access of the functions).
Cheng is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of keyboard locking features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Cheng to allow for a user has to unlock the keyboard in order to gain further access of the functions. Motivation to do so would allow for programmable keyboard lock capability which allows the owner (administrator) of the control unit (e.g., keyboard) to determine which functions are accessible by general users (other than administrator), while restricting the users from changing some settings (Cheng [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application of claim 1.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the customized OS feature is a keyboard extension (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear),
wherein the keyboard extension provides at least one dictation shortcut for inserting text into a dictation responsive to a voice command provided using the keyboard extension (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application of claim 1.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the customized OS feature, the dictation component, and the medical dictation application.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches a physician may be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data (shared data)),
wherein the shared data includes patient data (Kumar in [0027] teaches a physician may be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data (patient data)).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application of claim 1.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the customized OS feature, the dictation component, and the medical dictation application.
Kumar further teaches
wherein customized OS feature and the dictation component utilize shared data within the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches a physician may be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data (shared data)),
wherein the shared data includes instructions to access patient data from an external medical system (Kumar in [0027] teaches upon successful login (or upon otherwise accessing a schedule interface screen), embodiments can submit a schedule request to a local schedule store, a remote schedule store at the EMR coordination server, one or more remote schedule stores in one or more EMR servers).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application of claim 1.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the customized OS feature and the medical dictation application.
Kumar further teaches
wherein a second application separate from the medical dictation application is in communication with the customized OS feature (Kumar in [0027] teaches the EMR coordination server can receive a schedule request associated with a physician identifier (associated with an authenticated physician) via the physician's mobile device).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cheng, in view of Syal et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240428169 A1), hereinafter Syal.
Regarding claim 3, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application of claim 2.
Kumar, as modified above, does not teach, however Syal teaches
wherein an interface to the keyboard extension at the user device is persistent, such that the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed (Syal in [0067] teaches disabling a virtual warehouse manager application during a particular period of time, and a virtual warehouse to timeout may occur after a query has executed for longer than one hour).
Syal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of timeouts regarding virtual applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar, as modified above, further in view of Syal to allow for disabling a virtual application during a particular period of time. Motivation to do so would allow for virtual applications to be created, modified, and destroyed as desired (Syal [0003]).
Claims 8, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cho (US Patent Pub. No. 20120304094 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the customized OS feature, the dictation component, the first software application, and the medical dictation application.
Kumar does not teach, however Cho teaches
wherein the text is inserted into the dictation by copying text from the interface to the keyboard extension within the medical dictation application to the first software application using a cursor position determined with the request to access the keyboard extension of the medical dictation application (Cho in [0060] teaches the copy/crop and paste engine controls the copy/crop and paste tool box to paste the object (here, text or picture) on the desired position (the position at which the cursor is positioned)).
Cho is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copy and paste controls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Cho to allow for pasting the text at the desired position. Motivation to do so would allow for the user to select an object to copy or crop via the highlighting pen icon, wherein the selected object(s) is stored for a subsequent paste operation (Cho [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 17, Kumar teaches a method for medical dictation (Kumar in [0035] teaches the client interface application and the EMR coordination server communicate as client and server computers, and teaches using a medical dictation interface and control)
comprising:
launching a medical dictation application by selecting a user interface (UI) feature accessible within a second application (Kumar in [0029] teaches a user touches one of the spaces, and an on-screen keyboard pops up for entry of the letters and numerals),
wherein the second application is different from the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0027] teaches the EMR coordination server can receive a schedule request associated with a physician identifier (associated with an authenticated physician) via the physician's mobile device);
receiving input by the medical dictation application via the UI feature (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation (receive input) and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field);
translating the input into medical text by the medical dictation application (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation (translating the input into medical text) and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field).
Kumar teaches the UI feature, the medical text, and the second application.
Kumar does not teach, however Cho teaches
providing the medical text to the UI feature; and transmitting the medical text to a field within the second application via the UI feature (Cho in [0060] teaches the copy/crop and paste engine controls the copy/crop and paste tool box to paste the object (here, text or picture) on the desired position (the position at which the cursor is positioned)).
Cho is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copy and paste controls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Cho to allow for pasting the text at the desired position. Motivation to do so would allow for the user to select an object to copy or crop via the highlighting pen icon, wherein the selected object(s) is stored for a subsequent paste operation (Cho [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 17.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the UI feature is a browser extension (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear)
and
the second application is a web browser (Kumar in [0046] teaches using a web browser).
Regarding claim 20, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 17.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application, the UI feature, and the second application.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the UI feature is a keyboard interface for receiving user inputs to a computing device on which the medical dictation application and the second application are operating (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard or other interface to appear).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Syal.
Regarding claim 12, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar does not teach, however Syal teaches
wherein the interface to the keyboard extension is persistent, such that the interface to the keyboard extension executes on the user device until a command is provided to exit the keyboard extension or until a predetermined time out period has elapsed (Syal in [0067] teaches disabling a virtual warehouse manager application during a particular period of time, and a virtual warehouse to timeout may occur after a query has executed for longer than one hour).
Syal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of timeouts regarding virtual applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Syal to allow for disabling a virtual application during a particular period of time. Motivation to do so would allow for virtual applications to be created, modified, and destroyed as desired (Syal [0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Yoo et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20200126534 A1), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 13, Kumar teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the keyboard extension extends a keyboard of the user device (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a data field which can cause a virtual keyboard (customized OS feature) or other interface to appear),
Kumar does not teach, however Yoo teaches
wherein the voice command, when received, is not shared with the keyboard of the user device or additional extensions to the keyboard of the user device (Yoo in [0079] teaches the speech recognition server may transmit or forward the recognized text data to one or more of the example other terminals or any or all of such other terminals without transmitting or forwarding the text data to the first terminal).
Yoo is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of speech recognition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Yoo to allow for forwarding the recognized text data to the other terminals without transmitting or forwarding the text data to the first terminal. Motivation to do so would allow for an input and output interface to be configured to receive a speech of a user or a correct answer text as an input, and provide the user with a recognition result or a guide text (Yoo [0137]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cory (US Patent Pub. No. 20070061752 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kumar teaches a computer implemented method for medical dictation (Kumar in [0035] teaches the client interface application and the EMR coordination server communicate as client and server computers, and teaches using a medical dictation interface and control)
comprising:
authorizing a user device for access to a dictation application (Kumar in [0035] teaches using a medical dictation service, and in [0027] teaches requiring that a physician be authenticated prior to permitting access to patient EMR data, and teaches using a medical dictation service);
launching the dictation application based on a command received from a user interface (UI) feature via a second application different from the dictation application (Kumar in [0029] teaches a user touches one of the spaces, and an on-screen keyboard pops up for entry of the letters and numerals),
receiving voice commands at the dictation application extension (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation (receive voice commands) and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field);
translating the voice commands into text by the dictation component extension (Kumar in [0032] teaches the physician can use dictation (converts speech to text) and/or other data entry tools to add and/or change patient information associated with the selected field).
Kumar teaches the dictation application, the UI feature, and the second application.
Kumar does not teach, however Cory teaches
wherein the UI feature is accessible in both the dictation application and the second application (Cory in [0054] teaches copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application);
transmitting the text to the second application via the UI feature (Cory in [0054] teaches copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application).
Cory is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copying and pasting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar further in view of Cory to allow for copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application. Motivation to do so would allow for a selection to be made whether to use the source formatting of the chart or the destination formatting of the chart depending on the type of copy and paste operation selected (Cory [0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 14.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the dictation application, the UI feature, and the second application.
Kumar, as modified above, does not teach, however Cory teaches
wherein the UI feature is further accessible in a third application different from the dictation application and the second application (Cory in [0049] teaches using a first COM interface, a second COM interface, and another, third, COM interface which enables the chart integration application).
Cory is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copying and pasting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar, as modified above, further in view of Cory to allow for using a first COM interface, a second COM interface, and another, third, COM interface. Motivation to do so would allow for a selection to be made whether to use the source formatting of the chart or the destination formatting of the chart depending on the type of copy and paste operation selected (Cory [0007]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cory, in view of Porter (US Patent No. 4829576 A).
Regarding claim 16, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the computer implemented method of claim 14.
Kumar, as modified above, does not teach, however Cory teaches
further comprising:
transmitting the text [to the saved cursor location] (Cory in [0054] teaches copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application).
Cory is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copying and pasting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar, as modified above, further in view of Cory to allow for copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application. Motivation to do so would allow for a selection to be made whether to use the source formatting of the chart or the destination formatting of the chart depending on the type of copy and paste operation selected (Cory [0007]).
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the second application.
Kumar, as modified above, does not teach, however Porter teaches
saving a cursor location of user activity within the second application (Porter in [col 11 ln 1-11] teaches storing the current location of the cursor, before a search is started, so the user can return to that location);
Porter is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using cursors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar, as modified above, further in view of Porter to allow for storing the current location of the cursor. Motivation to do so would allow for speech recognition systems which improve the ease with which humans can control computer systems (Porter [col 2 ln 15-20]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, in view of Cho, in view of Cory.
Regarding claim 19, Kumar, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 17.
Kumar, as modified above, teaches the medical dictation application, the UI feature, and the second application.
Kumar, as modified above, does not teach, however Cory teaches
wherein the UI feature is accessible and usable in both the medical dictation application and the second application (Cory in [0054] teaches copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application);
Cory is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of copying and pasting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar, as modified above, further in view of Cory to allow for copying from the application where the chart currently resides and pasting the chart to a host application. Motivation to do so would allow for a selection to be made whether to use the source formatting of the chart or the destination formatting of the chart depending on the type of copy and paste operation selected (Cory [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657