DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on August 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated due to claim amendments.
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 1-3, 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,883 (hereinafter referred to as Patent ‘883) in view of Vasilevsky (US Patent No. 8,326,338).
Regarding claim 1, it recites “receiving voice data of a first user via a user device connected to a conference session” functionally similar to but broader than “recording voice data of a first user connected to a conference while the first user is in a first state” as recited in claim 8 of Patent ‘883; claim 1 of the present invention recites “based on determining that the user device is in a mute state in the conference session, displaying a selectable indicator on a user interface of the user device indicating that the voice data is not being transmitted to other user devices connected to the conference session” functionally similar to “determining the first user is talking while in the first state; displaying, for a time limit, a selectable buffering indicator to the first user in the first state; wherein the first state is a muted state” as recited in claim 8 of Patent ‘883; and claim 1 of the present invention recites “in response to receiving a selection of the selectable indicator: identifying speech fillers in the voice data; modifying the voice data by removing the identified speech fillers; and automatically transmitting the modified voice data of the first user to the other user devices connected to the conference session” functionally similar to “in response to the first user selecting the selectable buffering indicator within the time limit, initiating playback of the recorded voice data of the first user to a plurality of other users, wherein a playback rate of the recorded voice data is variable; and wherein the playback rate is varied by removing at least one of: filler words, discourse markers, pause fillers, or hesitation forms” as recited in claim 8 of Patent ‘883.
Patent ‘883 claim 8 does not teach “wherein the identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers” as recited in claim 1 of the present invention.
However, in the similar field, Vasilevsky teaches wherein the identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Patent ‘883 claim 8 to include the identified speech fillers comprising vocalized fillers as taught by Vasilevsky so that “various speech defects, if identified, can be removed, particularly to shorten the chunks, without affecting the information transmitted” (Vasilevsky, col. 5 ll. 33-36).
Claim 2, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky further modified with functionality of claim 7.
Claim 3, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky further modified with functionality of claim 10.
Claim 7, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky further modified with functionality of claim 4.
Claim 8, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky.
Claim 9, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky further modified with functionality of claim 12.
Claim 10, rejected against Patent ‘883 claim 8 modified with Vasilevsky further modified with functionality of claim 14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlow-Bates (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0055859), and further in view of Vasilevsky (US Patent No. 8,326,338).
Regarding claim 1, Finlow-Bates teaches a method comprising:
receiving voice data of a first user via a user device connected to a conference session (Paragraphs 0032, 0051-0052);
based on determining that the user device is in a mute state in the conference session (Paragraphs 0053-0054 mute ON), displaying a selectable indicator on a user interface of the user device indicating that the voice data is not being transmitted to other user devices connected to the conference session (Paragraphs 0061, 0068, 0078, 0080 selectable prompt) and
in response to receiving a selection of the selectable indicator (Paragraphs 0063-0064 user input to unmute):
identifying speech pauses (silence) in the voice data; modifying the voice data by removing the identified speech fillers; and automatically transmitting the modified voice data of the first user to the other user devices connected to the conference session (Paragraphs 0065-0067 transmit buffered audio after modified by removing silence periods) (Paragraphs 0037-0050 for details of processing audio, 0070-0088 for receiving device based buffer, 0089-0107 for server based buffer).
Finlow-Bates teaches modifying audio stream by removing silence periods i.e. fillers as disclosed by the instant application. But Finlow-Bates does not explicitly teach identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers.
However, in the similar field, Vasilevsky teaches wherein the identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Finlow-Bates to include the identified speech fillers comprising vocalized fillers as taught by Vasilevsky so that “various speech defects, if identified, can be removed, particularly to shorten the chunks, without affecting the information transmitted” (Vasilevsky, col. 5 ll. 33-36).
Regarding claim 2, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the speech fillers comprise at least one of: hesitations (silence), stutters, filler words, or discourse markers (Paragraphs 0042-0045). Vasilevsky teaches wherein the speech fillers comprise at least one of: hesitations, stutters, filler words, or discourse markers (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
Regarding claim 3, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the mute or un-mute is identified in the voice data by analyzing spoken words or phrases of the voice data in real-time using a natural language processing algorithm (Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0075, 0094, 0110), and Vasilevsky teaches wherein the speech fillers are identified in the voice data by analyzing spoken words or phrases of the voice data in real-time using a natural language processing algorithm (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
Regarding claim 4, Finlow-Bates teaches based on determining that the user device is in the mute state in the conference session, storing the voice data in a buffer until a storage threshold of the buffer is reached (Paragraph 0056 buffer for one or two minutes).
Regarding claim 5, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein when the storage threshold of the buffer is reached the method further comprises: ceasing display of the selectable indicator; and removing the voice data from the buffer (Paragraphs 0056, 0074, 0093 automatically deleting buffered audio for different conditions. It would have been obvious to modify Finlow-Bates to not prompt (give selectable option) the user and delete the buffer as an implementation choice to avoid overwriting or not storing audio that will be useless.).
Regarding claim 7, Finlow-Bates teaches in response to receiving the selection of the selectable indicator, switching the user device to an unmuted state (Paragraphs 0023, 0061, 0063-0065, 0078-0079, 0097-0098, 0126).
Regarding claim 8, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the modifying the voice data, further comprises, adjusting a playback speed of the voice data (Abstract, Paragraphs 0029, 0036, 0044, 0046-0049, 0065).
Regarding claim 11, Finlow-Bates teaches a system comprising:
input/output circuitry; control circuitry (Paragraphs 0127-0132) configured to:
receive voice data of a first user via the input/output circuitry of a user device connected to a conference session (Paragraphs 0032, 0051-0052);
based on determining that the user device is in a mute state in the conference session (Paragraphs 0053-0054 mute ON), display a selectable indicator on a user interface of the user device indicating that the voice data is not being transmitted to other user devices connected to the conference session (Paragraphs 0061, 0068, 0078, 0080 selectable prompt) and
in response to receiving a selection of the selectable indicator (Paragraphs 0063-0064 user input to unmute):
identify speech pauses (silence) in the voice data; modify the voice data by removing the identified speech fillers; and automatically transmit the modified voice data of the first user to the other user devices connected to the conference session (Paragraphs 0065-0067 transmit buffered audio after modified by removing silence periods) (Paragraphs 0037-0050 for details of processing audio, 0070-0088 for receiving device based buffer, 0089-0107 for server based buffer).
Finlow-Bates teaches modifying audio stream by removing silence periods i.e. fillers as disclosed by the instant application. But Finlow-Bates does not explicitly teach identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers.
However, in the similar field, Vasilevsky teaches wherein the identified speech fillers comprise vocalized fillers (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Finlow-Bates to include the identified speech fillers comprising vocalized fillers as taught by Vasilevsky so that “various speech defects, if identified, can be removed, particularly to shorten the chunks, without affecting the information transmitted” (Vasilevsky, col. 5 ll. 33-36).
Regarding claim 12, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the speech fillers comprise at least one of: hesitations (silence), stutters, filler words, or discourse markers (Paragraphs 0042-0045). Vasilevsky teaches wherein the speech fillers comprise at least one of: hesitations, stutters, filler words, or discourse markers (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
Regarding claim 13, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the mute or un-mute is identified in the voice data by analyzing spoken words or phrases of the voice data in real-time using a natural language processing algorithm (Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0075, 0094, 0110), and Vasilevsky teaches wherein the speech fillers are identified in the voice data by analyzing spoken words or phrases of the voice data in real-time using a natural language processing algorithm (col. 5 ll. 33-40).
Regarding claim 14, Finlow-Bates teaches based on determining that the user device is in the mute state in the conference session, the control circuitry is further configured to: store the voice data in a buffer until a storage threshold of the buffer is reached (Paragraph 0056 buffer for one or two minutes).
Regarding claim 15, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein when the storage threshold of the buffer is reached, the control circuitry is further configured to: cease display of the selectable indicator; and remove the voice data from the buffer (Paragraphs 0056, 0074, 0093 automatically deleting buffered audio for different conditions. It would have been obvious to modify Finlow-Bates to not prompt (give selectable option) the user and delete the buffer as an implementation choice to avoid overwriting or not string audio that will be useless.).
Regarding claim 17, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: in response to receiving the selection of the selectable indicator, switching the user device to an unmuted state (Paragraphs 0023, 0061, 0063-0065, 0078-0079, 0097-0098, 0126).
Regarding claim 18, Finlow-Bates teaches wherein the control circuitry configured to modify the voice data, is further configured to: adjust a playback speed of the voice data (Abstract, Paragraphs 0029, 0036, 0044, 0046-0049, 0065).
Claims 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlow-Bates and Vasilevsky as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of Gorti (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0220064).
Regarding claim 9, Finlow-Bates teaches the user device is a first user device and wherein the method further comprises: determining that voice data of a second user at a second user device is being received when automatically transmitting the modified voice data of the first user (Realtime conversation continues); but Finlow-Bates and Vasilevsky do not teach determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user; and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user.
However, in the similar field of communication, Gorti teaches determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user (Fig. 3B step 320, Paragraph 0040); and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user (Fig. 3A steps 310, 312, 314, Fig. 3B steps 322, 324, Paragraphs 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Finlow-Bates and Vasilevsky to include determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user; and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user as taught by Gorti in order to enable "the higher ranked second speaker to be heard" (Gorti, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Gorti teaches reinitiating transmission of the modified voice data of the first user after the transmission of the voice data of the second user has completed (Fig. 3A steps 366, 374, Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 19, Finlow-Bates teaches the user device is a first user device and wherein the method further comprises: determining that voice data of a second user at a second user device is being received when automatically transmitting the modified voice data of the first user (Realtime conversation continues); but Finlow-Bates and Vasilevsky do not teach determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user; and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user.
However, in the similar field of communication, Gorti teaches determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user (Fig. 3B step 320, Paragraph 0040); and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user (Fig. 3A steps 310, 312, 314, Fig. 3B steps 322, 324, Paragraphs 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Finlow-Bates and Vasilevsky to include determining that the voice data from the second user has a higher-priority value than the voice data from the first user; and interrupting transmission of the modified voice data of the first user and transmitting the voice data of the second user as taught by Gorti in order to enable "the higher ranked second speaker to be heard" (Gorti, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 20, Gorti teaches reinitiating transmission of the modified voice data of the first user after the transmission of the voice data of the second user has completed (Fig. 3A steps 366, 374, Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 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.
The above objection(s) is (are) based on the claim(s) as presently set forth in its (their) totality. It should not be interpreted as indicating that amended claim(s) broadly reciting certain limitations would be allowable. A more detailed reason(s) for allowance may be set forth in a subsequent Notice of Allowance if and when all claims in the application are put into a condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights