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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rubin et al., USPAT 12,118,266 B2.
Per independent claim 21, Rubin et al. discloses the method for editing audio, comprising:
presenting text corresponding to the audio (FIG.3A, “Transcript 304” window.);
in response to detecting a first predetermined input for the text, determining a plurality of text segments of the text based on a first position associated with the first predetermined input (Co.7, lines 10+, “highlighted the current word .” shows the means of highlight to make sections. ; the “vertical Bar 306” shows the first position corresponding to the highlighted text and the multiple text segments following.); and enabling segmentation editing of the audio based at least in part on the plurality of text
segments (FI.4C and 4D show examples of editing.; col.8, lines 10+ show selecting text segment for both text and/or corresponding audio editing).
Per dependent claim 22, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
separately presenting a first text segment of the plurality of text segments in a first area of a user interface, the first text segment corresponding to a first audio segment in the audio, wherein enabling the segmentation editing of the audio comprises: editing the first audio segment based on an input for the first area (FIG.3B shows the 304 transcript area showing the multiple text segments; and Tracks 302 area shows the separate display area showing the audio segments to be edited.).
Per dependent claim 23, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 22, wherein editing the first audio segment based on the input for the first area comprises: presenting an acoustic wave representation corresponding to the first audio segment in response to receiving a selection of the first area (FIG.3A, Tracks 302 area shows the audio represented as the acoustic waves.).
Per dependent claim 24, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 22, wherein editing the first audio segment based on the input for the first area comprises: enabling an editing function for the first audio segment in response to receiving a selection of the first area (col.7, line 38, “The end user may also be able to separately edit the audio file(s) arranged along the track(s) 302”).
Per dependent claim 25, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein enabling the segmentation editing of the audio comprises: enabling an editing function for at least one audio segment of the audio in response to the determination of the plurality of text segments (col.8, line 9, “the end user could select a transcript segment (e.g., by selecting a portion of a transcript 316 or a corresponding audio waveform), copy .. and paste…” shows the ability to select any amount of text segments for editing.).
Per dependent claim 26, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first predetermined input comprises at least one of: a long press, a single click, a double click, or a long press and drag gesture (col.3, lines 28-34, “Microsoft Windows, Apple macOS, Apple iOS, Linux, Google android, etc”, since the claimed input gestures are built into these OS GUIs; col.7, line 23, “via a drag-and-drop mechanism”.).
Per dependent claim 28, which depends on independent claim 21, the claim uses a “third predetermined input” for determining a third position without mentioning the existence of a “second predetermined input.” Note that claim 21 only recites “a first predetermined input” and thus, claim 28 jumps to the third predetermined input. The preceding dependent claim 27 mentions the “second predetermined input” following the first input of claim 21. It appears to read more naturally to have claim 28 being dependent on claim 27, and that is what the applicant may have intended. However, this does not raise the claim into the 35 USC 112(b) territory, since the claim is an open-ended claim and the applicant can choose to use any label differentiating the input from the first input of claim 21. It is only mentioned, in a hope to expedite the prosecution, just in case the applicant’s intention was to have claim 28 be dependent on claim 27.
Given that, without considering a “second input” in claim 28, Rubin et al. teaches, in response to detecting a third predetermined input and determining that a third position associated with the third predetermined input is a position that is inseparable in the text, performing at least one of the following operations: disabling the segmentation editing of the audio (col.col.9, line “End user may be able to … eliminate gaps in the audio waveform” making it inseparable as the gap is eliminated.)
Per dependent claim 29, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
presenting a first text segment of the plurality of text segments on a user interface; and recording an association between presentation positions of respective text units in the first text segment on the user interface and timestamps of corresponding respective audio units in the audio (In FIG.3A, note that the highlighted text segment in 304, displays the corresponding audio file in 302, which the Vertical Bar 306 aligned to the corresponding timestamp of the position of the text and the audio file.).
Per dependent claim 30, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 29, wherein enabling the segmentation editing of the audio comprises: determining a first text unit corresponding to the first position in the first text segment and determining a first timestamp in the audio for a first audio unit corresponding to the first text unit based on the presentation position of the first text unit and the recorded association (see FIG.3F for the text unit and the position and corresponding audio units displayed); and performing the segmentation editing on the audio according to the first timestamp (col.9, line 5, “End users may be able to directly manipulate gaps in the audio waveform, create gaps in the audio waveforms, etc” shows the segmentation editing.).
Claims 31-36 and 38-39 are for apparatus, e.g., a general-purpose programmable computer, for performing the method of claims 21-26 and 28-29, respectively, and are rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 40 is a computer-readable medium comprising the instructions for performing the method of claim 21, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 27 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. in view of Examiner's Official Notice.
Per dependent claim 27, Rubin et al. discloses the method of claim 21, wherein determining the plurality of text segments of the text comprises: in response to detecting a second predetermined input in addition to the first predetermined input, determining a first text segment, a second text segment, and a third text segment of the text based on the first position and a second position associated with the second predetermined input, wherein the second text segment is between the first text segment and the third text segment and is defined by the first position and the second position. (col.8, lines 15-28.) Here, when the user’s “selection of a transcript segment … [and] if the end user copies segment of a first transcript and pastes the segments into a second transcript” shows detecting the first segment and the second segment, since the first segment and any following segment that are being copied can be considered to be a second segment. The third segment can be the segment of the second transcript, in front of which the pasting takes place. The reference of Rubin et al. does not explicitly disclose “detecting a second predetermined input .. [for] a second text segment.” However, col.7, line 23, shows that “drag” is a recognized GUI action and as explained with respect to claim 26, the input action for selecting multiple text segments were well known in the window-based OS user interface. Thus, the examiner takes an Official Notice that it was well known to provide a second input to select a second item in editing in a GUI. It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the use of well-known second input for selecting the subsequent text segment for Rubin et al’s copy and paste, since Rubin et al. explicitly pointed out multiple segments in the first transcripts are copied into the second transcript (col.8, line 18), and the well known user interface technique would have identified additional segments for the operation.
Claim 37 is for apparatus, e.g., a general-purpose programmable computer, performing the method of claim 27, and is rejected under the similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
* A US-12148408-B2 2024-11-19 Kakoyiannis; Michael G10H1/0008 1/1
* B US-20070260968-A1 2007-11-08 Howard; JohnathonE G11B27/034 1/1
* C US-10423660-B1 2019-09-24 Heo; Donghyeok G06F16/30 1/1
* D US-20260073920-A1 2026-03-12 Dou; Qingyun G10L15/26 1/1
* E US-20240249751-A1 2024-07-25 Zeng; Xiangrui G11B27/031 1/1
* F US-20240244287-A1 2024-07-18 PIMMEL; Kim Pascal H04N21/4312 1/1
* G US-20240233769-A1 2024-07-11 Kutas; David Tamas G11B27/031 1/1
* H US-20220130427-A1 2022-04-28 Allibhai; Shamir G10L25/57 1/1
* I US-12300242-B2 2025-05-13 Cameron; Paul Charles G06F16/685 1/1
* J US-11238899-B1 2022-02-01 Miller; Joshua G11B27/28 1/1
* K US-9666208-B1 2017-05-30 Rubin; Michael G10L21/12 1/1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights