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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,051,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application define an invention that is merely an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the patent for the following reasons. Comparing the claims of the two documents, such as claims 1 of the present application and the patent, it is clear that all the elements of the claim 1 are found in claim 1 of the patent, therefore claim 1 is anticipated.
Claims 2-20 are anticipated by claims 2-20 of the patent.
18789194
12051420
1. An information processing method, comprising: receiving a first transcript corresponding to first audio data; displaying the first transcript; receiving a second transcript corresponding to second audio data, wherein the first audio data and the second audio data correspond to a same sentence or different sentences, and the first audio data is a subset of the second audio data when the first audio data and the second audio data correspond to the same sentence; and displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript; wherein the displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: displaying the second transcript to replace the first transcript; or, displaying a transcript updated based on a difference between the first transcript and the second transcript.
1. An information processing method, comprising: receiving, by a client and from a server, a first transcript corresponding to first audio data; displaying, by the client, the first transcript; receiving, by the client and from the server, a second transcript corresponding to second audio data, wherein the first audio data and the second audio data correspond to a same sentence or different sentences, and the first audio data is a part of the second audio data when the first audio data and the second audio data correspond to the same sentence; and displaying, by the client, the second transcript to update the first transcript; wherein the displaying, by the client, the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: displaying, by the client, the second transcript to replace the first transcript; or, displaying, by the client, a transcript updated based on a difference content between the first transcript and the second transcript.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 17-18 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibbon (US 6,473,778).
As to claim 1, Gibbon teaches an information processing method, comprising: receiving a first transcript 602 corresponding to first audio data; displaying the first transcript; receiving a second transcript 604 corresponding to second audio data ((40) The present invention also receives a transcript for the TV program, as shown in step 606. The present invention in other embodiments can receive other sorts of enriched text streams. In this document, the term "enriched" is used to describe a text stream that contains information additional to that included in the time-referenced text stream. This additional information can include text corrections, more accurate text, speaker identifications, missing text, and the like.), wherein the first audio data (close caption) and the second audio data (transcription) correspond to a same sentence or different sentences, and the first audio data is a subset of the second audio data when the first audio data and the second audio data correspond to the same sentence (Table 2); and displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript 608; wherein the displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: displaying the second transcript to replace the first transcript 610, ((20) Given the processed closed caption as shown in Table 1, a text alignment process is used to create a similar data structure in which the closed caption text is replaced by the corresponding text from the transcription, (21) For transcript sentences for which no corresponding caption sentence is found, the time fields are undefined. The pictorial transcript rendering process handles sentences with undefined times by treating them as continuations of previous sentences. (22)….Assuming that we are editing one string to make it match another, the three edit cases are: 1) insert a character from the other string, 2) delete a character from this string, and 3) replace a character with one from the other string.); or, displaying a transcript updated/adjusted based on a difference between the first transcript and the second transcript (Pars.5, 6, 32-42/ Col.9, line 42-Col.11, line 65; Figs.1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Gibbon teaches receiving a first sentence identifier of the first transcript; and receiving a second sentence identifier of the second transcript; correspondingly, the displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: in response to the second sentence identifier being the same as the first sentence identifier, displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript (Tables 1-4; Col.9, line 42-Col.11, line 65).
As to claim 3, Gibbon teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to the second sentence identifier being different from the first sentence identifier, displaying the first transcript and the second transcript (21) For transcript sentences for which no corresponding caption sentence is found, the time fields are undefined. The pictorial transcript rendering process handles sentences with undefined times by treating them as continuations of previous sentences)
As to claims 5-6, Gibbons teaches wherein the displaying the first transcript comprises: displaying the first transcript in a first display control, wherein the first display control is configured to display a transcript; and the displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: displaying the second transcript in the first display control to replace the first transcript; or, displaying a transcript updated in the first display control based on a difference between the first transcript and the second transcript (Tables 2-3; Figs.2, 7, 9).
As to claim 7, Gibbons teaches receiving an identity identifier of audio data from which a transcript is transcribed; and displaying the identity identifier with the transcript (Figs.2-3, 7; Table 2).
As to claims 10-12, Gibbons teaches where the method includes the steps of receiving a user request to generate a hypermedia document; and generating a hypermedia document in response to the user request using a selected template. The selected template can be specified by the user (Col.2, lines 9-12; Col.12, 8-35).
Regarding claims 13-15, 17-18 and 20, the corresponding device and instruction comprising the steps similar to the claims addressed above are analogous therefore rejected as being anticipated by Gibbons et al. for the foregoing reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-9, 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (once the ODP rejection is overcome).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 16 are allowable because Gibbons doesn’t teach wherein the method further comprises: receiving a first content version serial number corresponding to the first sentence identifier; receiving a second content version serial number corresponding to the second sentence identifier; and correspondingly, in response to the second sentence identifier being the same as the first sentence identifier, displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript comprises: in response to the second sentence identifier being the same as the first sentence identifier, and the second content version serial number ranks behind the first content version serial number, displaying the second transcript to update the first transcript.
Claims 8-9 and 19 are allowable because Gibbons doesn’t teach wherein the first transcript is translated from a first language, and the second transcript is translated from a second language.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657