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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Objection
The following claim is objected for the following reasons:
Independent computer-readable medium claim 11 depends on independent method claim 10. An independent claim is a standalone claim that contains all the limitations necessary to define an invention. It should not refer to another claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claimed invention, at independent claims 1, 10, and 11, is directed to a method (process), system (machine), and computer readable medium (manufacture) to detect a word of interest from a speech recognition result of a dialogue, wherein the dialogue is between a plurality of parties, the detecting a word of interest is based on a detection condition for the word of interest, and the word of interest comprises at least one of term, a word, an expression, a phrase, or a sentence that is to be noticed or paid attention to at least by a party of the plurality of parties; and transmit, based on the detected word of interest, display information to a predetermined terminal, wherein the display information specifies a pre-registered display mode to display at least either one of the detected word of interest or a display component representing the detected word of interest.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Under the 35 U.S.C. 101 new guidelines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed steps fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The step of detect a word of interest from a speech recognition result of a dialogue, may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, a human can analyze a textual transcript corresponding to a dialogue data, and detect specific keywords without using a machine.
As to the step of transmit, based on the detected word of interest, display information to a predetermined terminal, is a mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level
of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claimed steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory” are mere data gathering and manipulating recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is recited at a high level of generality, and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
As to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (Step 2B), as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 2, the use of “a processor” is at high level of generality, and even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 further refer and describe process of detection comprises pattern detection and a scene in which the detection pattern is spoken, or a type of statement in which the detection pattern is spoken (claims 2-5), which encompass a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind, as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 1. Claims 6-8 relate to transmitting information to a first and second terminal, which is mere data gathering and manipulating recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 9 to searching a database for dialogue history information by using the word of interest as a search condition, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Accordingly, claims 1-11 are directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-3, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2011/0270609) in view of Adcock (US 2006/0106767).
As per claim 1, Jones teaches detecting a word of interest from a speech recognition result of a dialogue, wherein the dialogue is between a plurality of parties (Fig. 1, [0149], and [0189], determining, by the relevance engine, relevant keyword(s) being discussed in an audio conference session between a plurality of client devices 102a-102d), the detecting a word of interest is based on a detection condition for the word of interest, and the word of interest comprises at least one of term, a word, an expression, a phrase, or a sentence that is to be noticed or paid attention to at least by a party of the plurality of parties ([0186], wherein said, the relevant keywords may represent, for example, frequently spoken words, statistically significant words, topics, etc.; and [0193] where it is determined that the extracted word is relevant if the relevance score exceeds a threshold); and
transmitting, based on the detected word of interest, display information to a predetermined terminal, wherein the display information to display at least either one of the detected word of interest or a display component representing the detected word of interest ([0193]- [0195], wherein resources associated with the relevant keywords are provided to the participants to be displayed on their corresponding user interfaces).
Jones may not explicitly disclose wherein the display information specifies a pre-registered display mode. Adcock in the same field of endeavor teaches a system and method for identifying query-relevant keywords, wherein matching keywords from the query may be highlighted in the search results to provide an indication of the context in which the document and the query matched ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use Adcock’s display mode with the system of Jones, in order to specify a pre-registered display mode when presenting the at least either one of the detected word of interest or a display component representing the detected word of interest. This would improve comprehension and allowing users to engage efficiently with the presented content.
As per claim 2, Jones teaches wherein the detection condition comprises a detection pattern and a predetermined number of occurrences of the detection pattern in the speech recognition result, the detection pattern represents at least either one of a regular expression of the word of interest to be detected or a character sequence representing the word of interest to be detected, and wherein the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the processor to detect the word of interest based on a number of times the detection pattern occurs in the speech recognition result and the predetermined number of occurrences of the detection pattern ([0189], wherein a specific keyword (as a pattern) and the number of times the keyword is repeated either in absolute terms or relative to a period of time (e.g., a word occurrence or usage density).
As per claim 3, Jones teaches wherein the detection condition further comprises at least either one of a scene in which the detection pattern is spoken, or a type of statement in which the detection pattern is spoken, and wherein the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the processor to detect the word of interest based on matching a scene or a type of statement in which the detection pattern occurs in the speech recognition result and the scene or the type of statement set in the detection condition ([0186], wherein words of interest are detected based on the topic and subject matter of the conference; and [0189], wherein important words are determined based on statements spoken by an important participant).
As per claim 6, transmit the display information to a first terminal used by a predetermined one speaker of a party of the plurality of parties in the dialogue ([0193], transmitting resource information associated with words of interest into participant devices). Jones teaches display information specifies a pre-registered color as an emphasis to display information ([0167], graying or blacking audio data). Jones may not explicitly disclose wherein the display information specifies a pre-registered color of detected word of interest. Adcock in the same field of endeavor teaches a system and method for identifying query-relevant keywords, wherein target keywords are highlighted in the search results to provide an indication of the context in which the document and the query matched ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use Adcock’s display mode with the system of Jones, in order to specify a pre-registered display mode when presenting the at least either one of the detected word of interest or a display component representing the detected word of interest. This would improve comprehension and allowing users to engage efficiently with the presented content.
As per claim 7, transmit the display information to a second terminal that is used by a person monitoring and assisting the predetermined one speaker ([0193], transmitting resource information associated with words of interest into participants devices 102 of conference participants 104, as in Fig. 1). Jones may not explicitly disclose the display information being for displaying the display component with emphasis in a pre-registered color. Adcock in the same field of endeavor teaches a system and method for identifying query-relevant keywords, wherein target keywords are highlighted in the search results to provide an indication of the context in which the document and the query matched ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use Adcock’s display mode with the system of Jones, in order to specify a pre-registered display mode when presenting the at least either one of the detected word of interest or a display component representing the detected word of interest. This would improve comprehension and allowing users to engage efficiently with the presented content.
As per claim 10, method claim 10 and apparatus claim 1 are related as method and apparatus of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 10 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.
As per claim 11, Jones teaches a computer readable medium ([0005], [0150]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claim 1.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2011/0270609) in view of Adcock (US 2006/0106767), and further in view of Zarecki (US 11734731).
As per claim 4, Jones in view of Adcock may not explicitly disclose determining the predetermined number of occurrences of the detection pattern based on a distribution of occurrences of the detection pattern in past dialogues. Zarecki in the same field of endeavor teaches determining the one or more keywords of the one or more keyword categories by identifying, based on previous dialogue data associated with the previous set of communication sessions, words used more frequently in the one or more subsets of the previous set of communication sessions than in one or more other subsets of the previous set of communication sessions (col. 24, line 17-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Zarecki with the system of Jones in view of Adcock, in order to determine the predetermined number of occurrences of the detection pattern based on a distribution of occurrences of the detection pattern in past dialogues, as claimed. This would facilitate context-rich communication and personalized interactions.
As per claim 9, Jones teaches transmitting the display information to a third terminal that specifies the search condition ([0162], [0187]). Jones in view of Adcock may not explicitly disclose searching for dialogue history information by using the word of interest as a search condition, in a database, wherein the database stores dialogue history information that represents speech recognition results of past dialogues, wherein the display information comprises: dialogue history information that is obtained from the search, and the word of interest included in a speech recognition result represented by the dialogue history information obtained from the search. Zarecki in the same field of endeavor teaches determining the one or more keywords of the one or more keyword categories by identifying, based on previous dialogue data associated with the previous set of communication sessions, words used more frequently in the one or more subsets of the previous set of communication sessions than in one or more other subsets of the previous set of communication sessions; and determining, by the contact center system, when the dialogue data includes the one or more keywords of the one or more keyword categories associated with the levels of customer effort perceptions; and displaying, by the contact center system in a user interface, user-selectable communication records associated with one or more communication sessions, of the plurality of communications sessions, for which the dialogue data includes the one or more keywords of the one or more keyword categories (col. 24, line 17-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Zarecki with the system of Jones in view of Adcock, in order to perform the above claimed limitations. This would facilitate context-rich communication and personalized interactions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2011/0270609) in view of Adcock (US 2006/0106767), and further in view of Lehman (US 20180068656).
As per claim 5, Jones in view of Adcock may not explicitly disclose detecting the word of interest based on context of the dialogue from a beginning of the speech recognition result of the dialogue to a part of the speech recognition result where the detection pattern occurs. Lehman in the same field of endeavor teaches detecting the word of interest based on context of the dialogue from a beginning of the speech recognition result of the dialogue to a part of the speech recognition result where the detection pattern occurs ([0027]- [0028], wherein contextual information of words uttered before a keyword is used for calculating the probability of the keyword being a word of interest (,i.e. an instruction word)). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Lehman with the system of Jones in view of Adcock, in order to enhance comprehension and prediction, and provide reliable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2011/0270609) in view of Adcock (US 2006/0106767), and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20210241772).
As per claim 8, Jones in view of Adcock may not explicitly disclose transmitting, based on detecting the word of interest, information to the second terminal, the information indicates detection of the word of interest to the second terminal by using a pre-registered sound. Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches outputting a sound when a keyword is detected to notify the user that the keyword has been detected (0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Kobayashi with the system of Jones in view of Adcock, in order to transmit, based on detecting the word of interest, information to the second terminal, the information indicates detection of the word of interest to the second terminal by using a pre-registered sound. This would reduce the need for visual monitoring and improve user experience.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659