DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of interpretating data, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a machine translation system” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, transcribing to extracted speech from a speaker into text (can be done by a user listening to speech and translating what is heard to text), interpreting the transcribed text for a user using a context-aware machine translation system to produce an interpreted output, wherein the interpretation considers the speaker's intent and the user's context to translate the extracted speech from a source language into at least one target language of the interpreted output (can be done by a user making an interpretation) and exporting the interpreted output (can be done by a user outputting the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all 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 only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as interpreting data, extracting speech, filtering data, selecting a language, outputting subtitles, parsing and displaying data, which is mental processing and non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (PGPUB 2024/0127002), hereinafter referenced Newman.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, Newman discloses a computerized a method, medium and system, hereinafter referenced as a method of real-time interpretation, comprising:
transcribing to extracted speech from a speaker into text (transcription; p. 0178);
interpreting the transcribed text for a user using a context-aware machine translation system to produce an interpreted output, wherein the interpretation considers the speaker's intent and the user's context (fig. 9, elements 909, 912) to translate the extracted speech from a source language into at least one target language of the interpreted output (first language to second language; p. 0178); and
exporting the interpreted output (generate a response; fig. 9, element 927 with p. 0234).
Regarding claim 2, Newman discloses a method wherein the machine translation system is a neural machine translation (NMT) system (p. 0144, 0167, 0224).
Regarding claim 3, Newman discloses a method wherein the interpretation considers at least one feature chosen from the speaker's or user's demographic (geographic location; p. 0103), age, slang (p. 0109), region, cultural context, or domain-specific knowledge.
Regarding claim 4, Newman discloses a method wherein the interpretation accurately communicates the speaker's intention (intents; p. 0104-0106, 0161-0169).
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses a method wherein the extracted speech is obtained from one or more input sources chosen from audio, video, or text files (p. 0084, 0091, 0121, 0130-0131, 0178).
Regarding claim 6, Newman discloses a method further comprising preprocessing the extracted speech to segment and/or filter relevant data for transcription and/or context-aware interpretation (accurate context; p. 0121, 0183, 0291).
Regarding claim 7, Newman discloses a method further comprising selecting the at least one target language (second language; p. 0178-0182).
Regarding claim 9, Newman discloses a method wherein, in the exporting step, the interpreted output is displayed as subtitles (displaying a conversation/translated text; p. 0219).
Regarding claim 10, Newman discloses a method further comprising extracting embedded speech information in a source language from an audio or a video file to produce extracted speech (p. 0084, 0091, 0121, 0130-0131, 0178).
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 19, Newman discloses a method wherein the audio or video file contains non-speech information, and the method further comprises parsing the extracted speech from the non-speech information before the transcribing step (generate text from visual elements; p. 0178).
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 203, Newman discloses a method wherein the audio or video file is generated in real-time by a user, and, in the exporting step, the interpreted text is displayed as a text stream on a display as the user generates the audio or video file (real-time; p. 0013).
Regarding claim 13, Newman discloses a method further comprising linking the audio or video file via a URL or a magic link via email (URL; p. 0152-0153, 0217-0220, 0232-0233).
Regarding claim 14, Newman discloses a method further comprising refining and improving the interpretation by dynamically adapting the machine translation system using user feedback and/or self-correction algorithms (user feedback, p. 0159, 0173).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (PGPUB 2024/0127002), hereinafter referenced as Newman in view of Crawford (PGPUB 2014/0039871).
Regarding claim 8, Newman discloses a method as describe above, but does not specifically teach wherein the interpreted output is exported as a SubRip Subtitle file.
Crawford discloses a method wherein the interpreted output is exported as a SubRip Subtitle file (p. 0347), to include a variety of caption formats.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to precisely synchronize data and provide a clear communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657