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
This office action is in response to correspondence regarding application 18/828,529, in which claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with Applicant on page 6 that no new matter is added by the amendments to claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20.
Amended claims 19 and 20 overcome the objections for minor informalities, and so they are withdrawn.
Amended claims 1, 19, and 20 overcome the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, and so the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, as amended the claims no longer contain language which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6-8 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claims 1, 19, and 20 satisfy Step 2A Prong Two, allegedly because the claims are directed to improving a call assistant’s performance, including when to facilitate training, while using advantageous real-world calls, which are therefore unique and more accurately test the CA’s captioning abilities. Applicant also points out that the claims have been amended to, based on the score, provide an indication to the CA for required additional captioning training.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains the finding from page 6 of the 05/04/26 Office Action that “Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in claim 1 of using the abstract idea within a particular technological environment of telephony is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)” is insignificant extra-solution activity in a pre-solution context because it is merely setting up the intended technological environment for the claimed solution.” As Applicant points out, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims, however, merely make a determination that a CA requires additional training based on a score generated by comparing sets of captions, and provide an indication of the required additional training. It is unclear why this should be considered an improvement to other technology itself or technical field itself. As those of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware, a manager at a CA call center might continually evaluate employee performance and assign additional training to low performers who create captions having errors. In order to establish an improvement to other technology or technical field that demonstrates a practical application, the claim element in question needs to meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus transforming the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Here, it is unclear which claim limitation(s) in particular are fairly considered to meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claimed technique results in providing an indication to the CA of the required additional captioning training. By doing this, it is not clear what other technology itself or technical field itself has actually been improved.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 regarding Engelke have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Engelke does not disclose initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user and an assisted user, allegedly because paragraph [0020] of Engelke instead describes a simulated call instead an actual relay call. In response, the entire purpose of Engelke is “training of relay call assistants and specifically to training call assistants to facilitate relay calls using a re-voicing technique”, ([0001]). An actual relay call is described at length in Engelke, [0002-0003], and Engelke is clearly directed to training CAs to provide relay re-voicing during an “actual relay call” as described in [0020].
Applicant’s arguments on page 9 regarding Fuimi have been considered and are persuasive, and so the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 based on Engelke in view of Fuimi are withdrawn. Specifically, as Applicant points out on page 9, Fuimi describes evaluating applicants for respeaker positions, before a respeaker is authorized to perform work with the adaptive workflow system 210, and there is no apparent connection between the respeaker training at [0068]-[0069] of Fiumi and the accuracy scores produced by the voice recognition engine. The examiner has therefore reconsidered the previous finding that one of ordinary skill in art the art at filing time would have arrived at each limitation of claims 1, 19, and 20 based on the teachings of Engelke and Fuimi. After reconsideration, the examiner finds that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engelke such that simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, by creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal; comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training because to the extent that the multiple sets of captions are compared in Fuimi, it is the voice recognition engine 222 selecting the text having the highest estimated accuracy (Fuimi, [0090]). There does not appear to be any indication in Fuimi that the accuracy of the voice recognition systems at steps 1004 and 1006 is affected by the lack of training of the respeaker. Thus even though Fuimi discloses determining based on respeakers test grades passing a certain score, that they can progress to a set training curriculum, for example, training for location-specific terms, [0068-0069], it is unclear why the evidence in Fuimi and Engelke would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to determining a need for additional captioning training on the part of the respeaker (i.e. call assistant) based on the comparison of the estimated accuracies of Fuimi’s voice recognition engines performing transcription.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU); during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA); simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal that represents true captions wherein the second set of captions is generated using a process that is different than the process used to generate the first set of captions; generating a score for the CA, based on comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; determining that the CA requires additional captioning training, based on the score; and providing an indication to the CA of the required additional captioning training.
The limitation of “during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA)”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA)” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a telephone call and writing down a set of captions.
Similarly, the limitation of “simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal that represents true captions wherein the second set of captions is generated using a process that is different than the process used to generate the first set of captions”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal that represents true captions wherein the second set of captions is generated using a process that is different than the process used to generate the first set of captions” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a telephone call and writing down a set of captions. With regard to the “the second set of captions is generated using a process that is different than the process used to generate the first set of captions” and “simultaneously” limitations, a human could create both “sets” of captions “simultaneously” by, for example, writing down sentences and considering the first half of the sentences to be the first set of captions and the second set of sentences to be the entire sentences, writing down the entire sentence considered a different process than writing down the first half of a sentence.
Similarly, the limitation of “generating a score for the CA, based on comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating a score for the CA, based on comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally generating a score for the CA, based on mentally comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining that the CA requires additional captioning training, based on the score”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining that the CA requires additional captioning training, based on the score” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining that the CA requires additional captioning training, based on the score.
Similarly, the limitation of “providing an indication to the CA of the required additional captioning training”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “providing an indication to the CA of the required additional captioning training” in the context of this claim encompasses writing down an indication on a sheet of paper for the CA of the required additional captioning training.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it 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 of “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)”. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic telephone call in which the captioning service is performed by a call assistant, not using any specific technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Further, the additional elements of “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)” are merely a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed. Although the additional element “a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)” limits the identified judicial exceptions “comparing…” and “using results… to determine…”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (telephony) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not impose any limits on practicing the abstract idea that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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 element of using the abstract idea within a particular technological environment of telephony 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in claim 1 of using the abstract idea within a particular technological environment of telephony is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)” is insignificant extra-solution activity in a pre-solution context because it is merely setting up the intended technological environment for the claimed solution.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. MPEP 2106.05. The additional elements of “initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU)” are at best merely instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of making a mental comparison between captions and making a mental determination based on a score, which can be performed entirely by a human in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2-18 merely recite additional steps for comparing sets of captions and determining if a call assistant requires additional captioning training, all of which either could be performed mentally or by writing down relationships with a pen and paper, and/or do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “the step of simultaneously creating the second set of captions includes presenting the first set of captions to a second call assistant to generate the second set of captions by correcting the first set of captions” which could be performed by allowing a second call assistant to correct the captions on the sheet of paper while writing them down.
Claim 3 recites “presenting the hearing user's voice signal to each of the first and second call assistants” which could be performed by having both call assistants listen to the user’s voice signal from the call.
Claim 4 recites “presenting the first set of captions to the AU as text” which could be performed by presenting the written captions to the AU.
Claim 5 recites “the steps of, simultaneously with creating the first set of captions, processing the HU voice signal via an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine to generate a third set of captions and generating an ASR quality value for the third set of captions” which, but for “via an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine” could be performed by writing down a third set of captions and mentally determining a quality value for the third set of captions. The additional element of “via an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 6 recites “the step of generating an ASR quality value includes comparing the third set of captions to the second set of captions and assessing accuracy of the third set of captions” which could be performed by mentally comparing the third set of captions to the second set of captions and mentally assessing accuracy of the third set of caption.
Claim 7 recites “the step of simultaneously creating the second set of captions includes presenting the third set of captions to a second call assistant to generate the second set of captions by correcting the third set of captions” which could be performed by mentally presenting the third set of written captions to a second call assistant to generate the second set of captions by correcting the third set of captions.
Claim 8 recites “presenting the hearing user's voice signal to each of the first and second call assistants” which could be performed by the first and second call assistants listening to the hearing user's voice.
Claim 9 recites “generating a notification when additional captioning training is required” which could be performed by drawing a written notification on the sheet of paper with the pen.
Claim 10 recites “generating a score for the CA is based on a percent accuracy of the first set of captions” which could be performed by mentally determining a percent accuracy of the first set of captions.
Claim 11 recites “for the call, processing call content to identify at least a first captioning characteristic associated with the call and storing the captioning characteristic with the score” which could be performed by listening to the call to identify at least a first captioning characteristic associated with the call and storing the captioning characteristic with the results of the score by writing them down on a piece of paper which is stored.
Claim 12 recites “the at least a first captioning characteristic includes at least one of a pitch or tone of the HU voice signal, speed of the HU voice signal, complexity of words in the HU voice signal, and quality of the HU voice signal” which could be performed by mentally listening for the pitch or complexity of words in the call.
Claim 13 recites “for the first captioned telephone service call, processing call content to identify at least a first captioning characteristic associated with the call and storing the captioning characteristic with the score, repeating the process for a second captioned telephone service call wherein the step of processing call content to identify includes processing the second call content to identify at least a second captioning characteristic associated with the second call and storing the at least a second captioning characteristic with the results of an additional score for the second call” which could be performed by repeating the above process for a second call.
Claim 14 recites “calculating a latency value for the first set of captions indicating at least one delay parameter associated with the first set of captions” which could be performed by mentally observing the time at which words are spoken and written down, and mentally calculating a delay.
Claim 15 recites “the at least one delay parameter includes an average latency value corresponding to the first set of captions” which could be performed by mentally determining the average delay between when words are spoken and written down.
Claim 16 recites “the average latency is the average latency over a most recent period during the first captioned telephone service call” which could be performed by mentally determining the average delay between when words are spoken and written down within a most recent time period.
Claim 17 recites “the step of combining the latency value and the results of the score to generate an overall service value” which could be performed by mentally combining the latency value and the results of the score to generate an overall service value.
Claim 18 recites “the CA is a first CA, the step of simultaneously creating the second set of captions including presenting the HU voice signal to a second CA to generate the second set of captions” which could be performed by allowing a second CA to listen to the call and create captions.
In sum, claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-18 amount to significantly more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-18 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-18 are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 is directed to a method, and each step in the method of claim 19 is also found in method claims 1 and 18 as discussed above. Claim 19 is ineligible for the same reasons as claims 1 and 18 as described above.
Independent claim 20 is directed to a method, and each step in the method of claim 20 is also found in method claim 18 as discussed above, with the exception of the following element: “wherein creating the second set of captions includes presenting the first set of captions to the CA via a display screen while the HU voice signal is broadcast to the second CA and receiving corrections from the second CA to the first set of captions” which, but for “via an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine”. But for “via a display screen” and “while the HU voice signal is broadcast”, this additional element could be performed by similar techniques to those discussed above with regard to claims 2 and 7. The additional elements of “via a display screen” and “while the HU voice signal is broadcast” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 20 is therefore ineligible for the similar reasons to those described above with regard to claims 2, 7, and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating subject matter allowable over the prior art of record:
The closest prior art to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 is Engelke et al. (US 20020114429 A1) and Fiumi (US 20120316882 A1).
Consider claim 1, Engelke discloses a method for providing captioned telephone service (providing a text file for a hearing impaired user to read during a relay call, [0020]) comprising the steps of:
initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU) (call assistant creates a text file containing captions for speech from a hearing caller speaking to a hearing impaired user, i.e. “assisted user”, [0020]);
during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA) (call assistant re-voices hearing caller’s speech to create text output file 28, [0020]);
creating a second set of captions that represents true captions wherein the second set of captions is generated using a process that is different than the process used to generate the first set of captions (linked script 20 is created by transcribing recorded voice portion 22 to create text portion 24, [0021]);
comparing captions using a scoring algorithm (comparison program compares text portion of linked script with output text file from voice recognition system to generate a composite measure combining criteria such as errors, [0034]. [0035]); and
using results of the scoring algorithm for human call assistant additional captioning training (measurement of the skill of a call assistant id splayed on the report and measures performance as she progresses through training, [0035])
Fiumi discloses simultaneously with creating a first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal (parallel transcriptions are generated by voice recognition engine 222 receiving respeaker speech audio and providing it to multiple voice recognition systems, resulting in multiple sets of transcribed text, i.e. a second set of captions corresponding to the voice signal that was respoken, [0087-0090], of speech during a conference call from speakers with hearing ability, i.e. “HU voice signal”, [0024], the respeaker considered a CA);
comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions (comparing the generated parallel transcripts to select text having the highest calculated probability of accuracy, [0087-0090]); and
determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training (determining based on respeakers test grades passing a certain score, that they can progress to a set training curriculum, for example, training for location-specific terms, [0068-0069]).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engelke such that simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, by creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal; comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training because to the extent that the multiple sets of captions are compared in Fuimi, it is the voice recognition engine 222 selecting the text having the highest estimated accuracy (Fuimi, [0090]). There does not appear to be any indication in Fuimi that the accuracy of the voice recognition systems at steps 1004 and 1006 is affected by the lack of training of the respeaker. Thus even though Fuimi discloses determining based on respeakers test grades passing a certain score, that they can progress to a set training curriculum, for example, training for location-specific terms, [0068-0069], the differences between claims 1, 19, and 20 with Engelke-Fuimi are considered patentable because it is unclear why the evidence in Fuimi and Engelke would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to determining a need for additional captioning training on the part of the respeaker (i.e. call assistant) based on the comparison of the estimated accuracies of the voice recognition engines performing transcription.
Consider claim 19, Engelke discloses a method for providing captioned telephone service (providing a text file for a hearing impaired user to read during a relay call, [0020]) comprising the steps of:
initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU) (call assistant creates a text file containing captions for speech from a hearing caller speaking to a hearing impaired user, i.e. “assisted user”, [0020]);
during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA) (call assistant re-voices hearing caller’s speech to create text output file 28, [0020]);
creating a second set of captions (linked script 20 is created by transcribing recorded voice portion 22 to create text portion 24, [0021]);
comparing captions using a scoring algorithm (comparison program compares text portion of linked script with output text file from voice recognition system to generate a composite measure combining criteria such as errors, [0034]. [0035]); and
using results of the scoring algorithm for human call assistant additional captioning training (measurement of the skill of a call assistant is displayed on the report and measures performance as she progresses through training, [0035]).
Engelke does not specifically mention: simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA;
comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and
using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training.
Fiumi discloses simultaneously with creating a first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA (parallel transcriptions are generated by voice recognition engine 222 receiving respeaker speech audio and providing it to multiple voice recognition systems, resulting in multiple sets of transcribed text, i.e. a second set of captions corresponding to the voice signal that was respoken, [0087-0090], of speech during a conference call from speakers with hearing ability, i.e. “HU voice signal”, [0024], the first voice recognition system considered a first CA, and the second voice recognition system considered “a second call CA”);
comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions (comparing the generated parallel transcripts to select text having the highest calculated probability of accuracy, [0087-0090]); and
determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training (determining based on respeakers test grades passing a certain score, that they can progress to a set training curriculum, for example, training for location-specific terms, [0068-0069]).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engelke such that simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, by creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA; comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 20, Engelke discloses a method for providing captioned telephone service (providing a text file for a hearing impaired user to read during a relay call, [0020]) comprising the steps of:
initiating a first captioned telephone service call between a hearing user (HU) and an assisted user (AU) (call assistant creates a text file containing captions for speech from a hearing caller speaking to a hearing impaired user, i.e. “assisted user”, [0020]);
during the first captioned telephone service call, creating a first set of captions corresponding to an HU voice signal using a call assistant (CA) (call assistant re-voices hearing caller’s speech to create text output file 28, [0020]);
creating a second set of captions, wherein creating the second set of captions includes presenting the first set of captions to the CA via a display screen and receiving corrections from the CA to the first set of captions (call assistant re-voices the linked script and voice recognition system transcribes the voice of the call assistant, the resulting text is displayed, and call assistant corrects errors, resulting in a second set of captions, [0031]);
comparing captions using a scoring algorithm (comparison program compares text portion of linked script with output text file from voice recognition system to generate a composite measure combining criteria such as errors, [0034]. [0035]); and
using results of the scoring algorithm for human call assistant additional captioning training (measurement of the skill of a call assistant is displayed on the report and measures performance as she progresses through training, [0035]).
Engelke does not specifically mention: simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA;
comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and
using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training.
Fiumi discloses simultaneously with creating a first set of captions using the CA, creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA (parallel transcriptions are generated by voice recognition engine 222 receiving respeaker speech audio and providing it to multiple voice recognition systems, resulting in multiple sets of transcribed text, i.e. a second set of captions corresponding to the voice signal that was respoken, [0087-0090], of speech during a conference call from speakers with hearing ability, i.e. “HU voice signal”, [0024], the first voice recognition system considered a first CA, and the second voice recognition system considered “a second call CA”);
comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions (comparing the generated parallel transcripts to select text having the highest calculated probability of accuracy, [0087-0090]); and
determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training (determining based on respeakers test grades passing a certain score, that they can progress to a set training curriculum, for example, training for location-specific terms, [0068-0069]).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engelke such that simultaneously with creating the first set of captions using the CA, by creating a second set of captions corresponding to the HU voice signal using a second call CA; comparing the first set of captions and the second set of captions; and using results of the scoring algorithm to determine if the human call assistant requires additional captioning training for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
A somewhat analogous technique was known in the field of human transcriptionist training. Kahn et al. (US 7006967) describes comparing a transcript generated by a human transcriptionist to a known verbatim transcript to generate an accuracy rate, which is used to determine when to advance the transcriptionist to the next stage of training (Col 11 lines 22-42). However, this is significantly different from the technique claimed which generates a first set of captions “during” a telephone service call between a hearing user and an assisted user and “simultaneously” creates a second set of captions for the comparison.
Dependent claims 2-18 are allowable over the prior art of record because they depend on and further limit the allowable subject matter in parent claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 09/16/26
Prosecution Insights