Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Claims 1-20 filed on 08/09/2024 are pending.
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 2 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. Since independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 have exactly the same limitation “recording audio from a microphone … after detecting the first activity”, a person with ordinarily skilled in the art can’t determine whether or not the scope of the limitation in claim 2 is the same or further limitation of claim 1.
Claim 10 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. The claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim 5 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. Since independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5 have exactly the same limitation “a mobile computing device”, a person with ordinarily skilled in the art can’t determine whether or not the scope of the limitation in claim 5 is the same or further limitation of claim 1.
Claim 13 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. The claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim 19 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. The claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim 6 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. Since the claim limitation “a computing device” is broader than the limitation “a mobile computing device” in independent claim 1, a person with ordinarily skilled in the art can’t determine whether or not the scope of the limitation in claim 5 is the same or further limitation of claim 1.
Claim 14 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. Since the claim limitation “a computing device” is broader than the limitation “a mobile computing device” in independent claim 9, a person with ordinarily skilled in the art can’t determine whether or not the scope of the limitation in claim 14 is the same or further limitation of claim 9.
Claim 20 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. Since the claim limitation “a computing device” is broader than the limitation “a mobile computing device” in independent claim 17, a person with ordinarily skilled in the art can’t determine whether or not the scope of the limitation in claim 20 is the same or further limitation of claim 17.
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 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 1-5, 9-13 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mumick (“Mumick”) [U.S Patent 10,552,030 provided in IDS filed 08/09/2024]
Regarding claim 1, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
A computer-implemented method, the method comprising [Fig. 1: ‘method for recording media data … based on one or more gestures on a graphical user interface of an electronic device’]:
detecting, by a mobile computing device [Figs. 3-7], a first activity (i.e. ‘detects a gesture’, e.g. pressing PTT 301b) [Figs. 1, 3-7: ‘103’; col. 4, ll. 15-20: ‘performs a first action … on detection of a gesture’] and responsive to the detecting of the first activity, performing a first action (i.e. displaying a voice recording application 302) [Figs. 3A, 3B];
displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the mobile computing device, a voice memo recording application [Figs. 1, 3-7; col. 3, ll. 1-10: ‘one of the defined interface region’; ‘GUI’];
recording audio from a microphone [Fig. 3B: ‘302’; Figs. 6B, 6D, 9; col. 17, ll. 55-60: ‘The input devices 907 are, … a microphone’] of the mobile computing device after detecting the first activity [Fig. 3A, 3B; col. 11: ‘In response to (i.e. after) the detection of the press and hold gesture (i.e. PTT 301b), the audio recording application triggers recoding of the audio data’; Fig. 1: ‘104’; col. 4, ll. 15-20: ‘recording the media data’; ‘The audio recording application performs a first action associated with the recording of the audio data … on detection of a gesture’; ‘The audio data comprises, for example, … voice information’]; and
triggering [col. 1, ll. 55-65: ‘a voice activity detection … automatically terminates the recording of the media data’; col. 3; ‘a release’], by the voice memo recording application, the microphone to immediately stop recording (i.e. ‘cancel’, ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’) [col. 3, 4] upon losing focus (i.e. ‘determine when the user has stopped speaking’ or pressing RTS 301b in light of Specification of [para. 0017: ‘pressing a home button, a back button, or turning off the screen’]) [Figs. 3-7; col. 1, ll. 60-65; col. 3, 4].
Regarding claim 2, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising recording audio from a microphone [Fig. 3B: ‘302’] of the mobile computing device after detecting the first activity [Fig. 3A, 3B; col. 11: ‘In response to (i.e. after) the detection of the press and hold gesture (i.e. PTT 301b), the audio recording application triggers recoding of the audio data’ ] and prior to the displaying of the voice memo recording application [Fig. 3A prior to Fig. 3B; col. 11, ll. 10-35: displaying “RECORDING”; 301a and “hold to record (HTR)/release to stop (RTS)”].
Regarding claim 3, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising configuring the first activity to include one or more of: a voice command that triggers the mobile computing device to perform voice recognition and pressing on an object (i.e. PTT) [Fig. 3A: 301b] associated with execution of the voice memo recording application to launch the voice memo recording application [See rejection of claim 2]
Regarding claim 4, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first action comprises displaying the voice memo recording application [Fig. 3A, 3B: the 302 is at the top level of the display 303] on a top level of the GUI overlaying the contents of the GUI display and recording audio from the microphone [Fig. 3A, 3B; col. 11: ‘In response to (i.e. after) the detection of the press and hold gesture (i.e. PTT 301b), the audio recording application triggers recoding of the audio data’; Fig. 1: ‘104’; col. 4, ll. 15-20: ‘recording the media data’; ‘The audio recording application performs a first action associated with the recording of the audio data … on detection of a gesture’; ‘The audio data comprises, for example, … voice information’].
Regarding claim 5, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting, by a mobile computing device [Figs. 3-7], a second activity causing the voice memo recording application to lose focus (i.e. ‘determine when the user has stopped speaking’ or pressing RTS 301b in light of Specification of [para. 0017: ‘pressing a home button, a back button, or turning off the screen’]) [Figs. 3-7; col. 1, ll. 60-65; col. 3, 4], and responsive to the detecting of the second activity [col. 1, ll. 55-65: ‘a voice activity detection … automatically terminates the recording of the media data’; col. 3; ‘a release’], performing a second action (i.e. ‘cancel’, ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’) [col. 3, 4; col. 11, ll. 10-35: ‘RTR’, ‘RTR’, ‘RTS’, ‘TTE’], the second action comprising of stopping the recording of audio (i.e. ‘cancel’, ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’) [col. 3, 4; col. 11, ll. 10-35: ‘RTR’, ‘RTR’, ‘RTS’, ‘TTE’].
Regarding claim 7, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 5, further comprising configuring the second activity (i.e. ‘determine when the user has stopped speaking’ or pressing RTS 301b in light of Specification of [para. 0017: ‘pressing a home button, a back button, or turning off the screen’]) [Figs. 3-7; col. 1, ll. 60-65; col. 3, 4] to include one or more of: a voice command that triggers the mobile computing device to perform voice recognition, pressing on an object associated with a voice memo recording application, pressing on a home button of the mobile computing device, pressing on a back button of the mobile computing device (i.e. ‘cancel’, ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’) [col. 3, 4; col. 11, ll. 10-35: ‘RTR’, ‘RTR’, ‘RTS’, ‘TTE’], turning off the screen of the mobile computing device, and pressing on a physical button or haptic button of the mobile computing device.
Regarding claim 9, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 11, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 12, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 4, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 15, the non-transitory computer-readable medium including stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 7, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
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 of this title, 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 6, 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumick in view of Typrin (“Typrin”) [US 10,002,611 B1]
Regarding claim 6, Mumick meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the second action (i.e. ‘cancel’, ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’) [col. 3, 4; col. 11, ll. 10-35: ‘RTR’, ‘RTR’, ‘RTS’, ‘TTE’] comprises storing the recorded audio in a file (i.e. ‘save the recorded audio data’) [Fig. 7, col. 11, ll. 10-35; col. 14, ll. 40-50] and transmitting the recorded audio file to a computing device (i.e. ‘sending the recorded media data to another electronic device’) [col. 6, ll. 20-23; col. 14, ll. 40-50; col. 23, ll. 60-66: ‘sending said media data to the server’], and at least one of: performing a speech to text transliteration on the recorded file to generate a text transcript of the recorded audio, saving the text transcript, transmitting the text transcript to the external system, analyzing the text transcript to parse out commands, and performing one or more third actions based on the parsed commands.
Mumick does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
at least one of: performing a speech to text transliteration on the recorded file to generate a text transcript of the recorded audio, saving the text transcript, transmitting the text transcript to the external system, analyzing the text transcript to parse out commands, and performing one or more third actions based on the parsed commands.
However in the same field of endeavor Typrin discloses the deficient claim as follows:
at least one of: performing a speech to text transliteration on the recorded file to generate a text transcript of the recorded audio (i.e. ‘the text version of the message’) [col. 2, ll. 20-40], saving the text transcript, transmitting the text transcript to the external system, analyzing the text transcript to parse out commands (i.e. ‘send Bob a message’) [col. 2, ll. 20-40], and performing one or more third actions (i.e. ‘send’) based on the parsed commands (i.e. ‘send Bob a message’) [col. 2, ll. 20-40].
Mumick and Typrin are combinable because they are from the same field of audio recording devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Mumick and Typrin as motivation to include asynchronous audio messaging thereby enabling a user to quickly and easily create and transmit a message to a recipient [Typrin: Abstract].
Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the form of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Claims 8 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumick in view of Li et al. (“Li”) [US 2022/0149183 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Mumick meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 5.
Mumick does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 5, the first action further comprising turning off the screen of the mobile computing device, running the voice memo application in the background, and configuring the mobile computing device to perform at least one of the first action and the second action responsive to a preset voice command.
However in the same field of endeavor Li discloses the deficient claim as follows:
the first action further comprising turning off the screen of the mobile computing device [para. 0126: ‘detect, …, that the user holds … close to an ear to make/answer a call, to automatically turn off the screen’; Fig. 4C; para. 0155: ‘when the screen is turned off, …, the mobile phone starts the camera and enters the multi-channel video recording mode’], running the voice memo application in the background [para. 0126, 0155 disclose the recording running while the screen is turned off for ‘power saving’], and configuring the mobile computing device to perform at least one of the first action and the second action responsive to a preset voice command (i.e. ‘a voice instruction of the user … to enter the multi-channel video recording mode’) [para. 0155].
Mumick and Li are combinable because they are from the same field of audio recording devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Mumick and Li as motivation to turn off the screen in recording mode for power saving [Li: para. 0126, 0155].
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 8 in the form of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488