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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process.
Re claim 1, a computer-implemented method, comprising:
transmitting, by a computing device of a video conference provider system, one or more video streams corresponding to one or more participants in a video conference, at least a subset of the one or more video streams displayed in one or more windows by client devices connected to the video conference, wherein each of the one or more windows correspond to one or more videoconference participants;
identifying, by a language identification process of the computing device, a respective identified-language for at least one audio stream of one or more audio streams that correspond to the one or more windows;
translating, by a translation process of the computing device, the at least one audio stream from the respective identified-language to a target language of the computing device; and
transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of a first translation of an audio stream to one or more client devices to cause at least a subset of the client devices to display a first notification on each window that corresponds to a translated audio stream of the one or more audio streams.
Under Prong I step 2A, the italic limitations “identifying…” and “translating…” can be mentally done in human mind wherein one with multiple language knowledge can listen conversation/audio and be able to translate and speak in another language as desired. Under Prong II step 2A, the other non-italic limitations in the claims including memories, processors, and instructions are considered as additional elements however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements including memories, processors, and instructions of the computer device are merely generalized high level hardware component of computer system and the limitations of transmitting and displaying are considered as pre and post activity solutions for gathering/collecting information over the network and be able to present or display data. These additional elements are not integrated into the practical application. Under step 2B, these additional elements individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements including memories, processors, and instructions of the computer device are merely generalized high level hardware component of computer system and the limitations of transmitting and displaying are considered as pre and post activity solutions for gathering/collecting information over the network and be able to present or display data as evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Re claims 2-7, these claims are similarly analyzed and rejected as seen in claim 1 above as these claims recite limitations that are either abstract idea limitations or insignificant additional elements that are not integrated into the practical application as required.
Re claim 9-14, these are medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claims 2-7. Thus, claims 9-14are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2-7 above.
Re claim 15-20, these are device claim having similar limitations as cited in claims 2-6. Thus, claims 15-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2-6 above.
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 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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merhej (U.S. 2020/0075000 A1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. 2022/0199086 A1).
Re claim 1, Merhej discloses in Figures 1-5 a computer-implemented method, comprising:
transmitting, by a computing device of a video conference provider system, one or more video streams corresponding to one or more participants in a video conference, at least a subset of the one or more video streams displayed in one or more windows by client devices connected to the video conference, wherein each of the one or more windows correspond to one or more videoconference participants (e.g. abstract, Figures 1-2 with multiple participants in video conference and paragraphs [0002-0003]);
identifying, by a language identification process of the computing device, a respective identified-language for at least one audio stream of one or more audio streams that correspond to the one or more windows (e.g. paragraphs [0002-0003; 0011-0012; and 0043]);
translating, by a translation process of the computing device, the at least one audio stream from the respective identified-language to a target language of the computing device (e.g. paragraphs [0004 and 0007-0010, 0018, and 0027] wherein specific segment can be translated to different language voice/audio).
Merhej does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of a first translation of an audio stream to one or more client devices to cause at least a subset of the client devices to display a first notification on each window that corresponds to a translated audio stream of the one or more audio streams.
However, Liu et al. disclose transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of a first translation of an audio stream to one or more client devices to cause at least a subset of the client devices to display a first notification on each window that corresponds to a translated audio stream of the one or more audio streams (e.g. paragraph [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of a first translation of an audio stream to one or more client devices to cause at least a subset of the client devices to display a first notification on each window that corresponds to a translated audio stream of the one or more audio streams as seen in Liu et al.’s invention into Merhej’s invention because it would enable to alert the receiver end various translation options.
Re claim 2, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose identifying the respective identified- language for each audio stream comprises: accessing, by the computing device, audio information comprising an audio stream from a client device of the one or more client devices (e.g. Merhej – Figures 1-2 from various user’s devices); providing, by the computing device, a first audio segment from the audio stream to a language identification process of the computing device comprising a machine learning model that is trained to identify a language of a plurality of languages within recorded speech, wherein the language identification process assigns a first confidence score to the first audio segment (e.g. Liu et al. - paragraphs [0013-0014]); and identifying, by the language identification process of the computing device, the respective identified-language corresponding to the first audio segment based at least in part on the first confidence score exceeding a confidence threshold (e.g. Merhej – paragraphs [0017-0018 and 0048]).
Re claim 3, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose providing, by the computing device, the first audio segment as input to a translation process; receiving, by the computing device, a first translated text as output from the translation process; and displaying the first translated text (e.g. Merhej – Figures 1-2).
Re claim 4, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose providing, by the computing device, a second audio segment as input to the translation process, wherein the second audio segment is generated after the first audio segment; receiving, by the computing device, a second translated text as output from the translation process; and updating, by the computing device, the first translated text based at least in part on the second translated text (e.g. Merhej - Figures 1-3 wherein translation in sequence and display on the screen in sequence).
Re claim 5, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose receiving, by the translation process of the computing device, a chat message from a particular client device that corresponds to a particular translated audio stream; and translating, by the translation process of the computing device, the chat message from the respective identified-language to the target language (e.g. Merhej - paragraphs [0002, 0004 and 0007-0010, 0018, and 0027]).
Re claim 6, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose transmitting, by the computing device, an indication of a second translation of the chat message to the one or more client devices to cause at least a subset of the client devices to display a second notification on a chat window (e.g. Liu et al. – paragraph [0117]).
Re claim 7, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose receiving, from the client device, information identifying a particular translation notification that corresponds to a particular translated audio stream (e.g. Liu et al. – paragraph [0117]); and transmitting, by the computing device, instructions to present information identifying the respective identified-language that corresponds to the particular translated audio stream on the client device (e.g. Merhej – Figures 1-3).
Re claim 8, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 11, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 12, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 13, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 14, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 15, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 19, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose the computing device is a client device of the one or more client devices of a video conference provider system (e.g. Merhej – Figures 1-2).
Re claim 20, Merhej in view of Liu et al. disclose the one or more processors are configured to: receive, by the translation process, a chat message from a particular client device that corresponds to a particular translated audio stream (e.g. Merhej – paragraph [0002]); translate, by the translation process, the chat message from the respective identified-language to the target language; and display the chat message on a chat window (e.g. Merhej – paragraphs [0004 and 0007-0010, 0018, and 0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0399024
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0199086
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0092274
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0334478
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0124803
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075000
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0065514
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189117
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373706
U.S. Patent No. 11,961,410
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451