DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the 101 issue, a human being can: 1) transcribe an audio signal to text; and 2) summarize the transcribed text. This is the central purpose of the invention. The additional elements of “processor” and “input sensor” are parts of a conventional computing system. They are merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Applicant’s claims also recited “a model that is generative”. But absence of specificity and technical details describing how this model is used to process the input data, it is also interpreted as a thought process. For these reasons, examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “receive a transcription …”, “receive a summary request …”, “identify … extracted text”, “process the extracted text … to obtain a summary …”, and “display …”, and “providing …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”. For example, but for the “processor” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving a transcription and a summary request, summarizing the transcription for displaying on a device screen. These steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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 - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 “a sensor” and “a model” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount 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.
Dependent claims 3-10, 12-15, and 17-20 includes additional steps or elements under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. These steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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. The claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boekweg in view Aldred et al. (USPG 2024/0249068, hereinafter Aldred).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Boekweg discloses a computer program product, device and method, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, are configured to cause the at least one computing device to: at least one processor (figure 4); at least one memory (figure 4); at least one input sensor (figure 4); and at least one display, wherein instructions stored using the at least one memory, when executed by the at least one processor (figure 4), cause the device to:
receive a transcription stream including transcribed text that has been transcribed from speech (paragraphs 109-110 and/or figure 5, steps 505-515, obtaining audio and transcribing into text);
receive, via an input sensor of a device (“key phrases in the audio” received via a microphone as discussed in paragraph 114), a summary request for a summary to be provided on the display of a device (paragraph 77, “the device 200 may send the request to generate the summary 215 in response to obtaining an indication of an event, such as user misunderstanding, and determining that the user misunderstanding satisfies a threshold level of user misunderstanding”, this event can be facial expression of the user as discussed in paragraph 114);
determine a metric of accumulation of the transcribed text (paragraph 76, buffer length is the metric for accumulating transcribed text; the transcribed text is pushed out when the buffer is full; “ Once the buffer is full, in some embodiments, the transcription 210 may effectively slide through the buffer in a continuous manner such that the transcription 210 in real-time is continuously added to the buffer and the oldest portion of the transcription 210 is continually deleted from the buffer”);
identify, from the transcribed text and in response to the summary request, extracted text (paragraph 32, “The summary of the transcription may include a simplified form of the transcription. As examples, the summary may include, based on the transcription: a reduced word count, smaller or less complex words, bullet points, main concepts, paraphrasing, acronyms, slang, key words, or any other suitable type of summary that simplifies the transcription”);
process the extracted text using a model that is generative to obtain a summary of the extracted text (paragraph 111, “The summary may be generated using a summary generation system” and/or figure 5, step 520; absence of specificity, “a model that is generative” is interpreted as a conventional summarization model ); and
display the summary on the display of the device (paragraph 112 and/or figure 5, step 525, displaying a summary of the text).
Boekweg fails to explicitly disclose, however, Aldred teaches processing the extracted text based on the determined metric to generate a summary (process in figure 4A, steps 194-204, determining if the extracted text is within a threshold amount, and if not, breaking it into segments within the threshold amount, for the summarizer to generate a summarized text).
Since Boekweg and Aldred are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of using accumulation metric or text length information to summarize transcribed text. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 14-15, Boekweg further discloses wherein the input sensor includes at least one of a touchscreen, a gesture recognition device, a scroll bar, a button, or a microphone (paragraph 77, “ the device 200 may send the request to generate the summary 215 in response to obtaining an indication of an event, such as user misunderstanding, and determining that the user misunderstanding satisfies a threshold level of user misunderstanding”; this event can be facial expression of the user or audio volume received via a microphone as discussed in paragraph 114); wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: receive the summary request as a vocal command from a user of the device, wherein the input sensor includes a microphone of the device (this event can be facial expression of the user or “key phrases in the audio” received via a microphone as discussed in paragraph 114); receive the transcription stream from a speech recognition engine (figure 5, steps 515-520, speech recognizer converts speech to text, which are then forwarded to the text summarizer).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 20, Boekweg further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: identify the extracted text as including text received at the device prior to the summary request; and extract the extracted text from a transcription buffer (paragraphs 80-82, text is extracted for the purpose of summary generation; the summary can be made available for presentation upon request); wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: identify the extracted text as including text received after the summary request; and extract the extracted text from the transcription stream after the summary request (paragraphs 77, 80-82, and 114, multiple embodiments, where request can be made before and/or after text summarization); generate at least two summaries using the model, including the summary; and select the summary from the at least two summaries based on device characteristics of the device and on user preferences of a user of the device (paragraphs 84 and 89, “a search of multiple summaries that include the summary 215 may be made on the device 200”; a summary can be provided for display based on a received command).
Regarding claim 13, Boekweg further discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the device is configured to receive the transcription stream and the summary from a second device in communication with the device (figure 1 and/or paragraph 37, “receiving the summary at one or both of the first and second devices 104 and 106 may include receiving the summary of the transcription of the communication session as generated by the transcription system 130”).
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boekweg in view of Aldred, and further in view of Cheung et al. (USPG 2021/0151058, hereinafter Cheung).
Regarding claim 6, 12, and 19, Boekweg fails to explicitly disclose, however, Cheung teaches wherein the device includes a head-worn device and the display includes a head-worn display, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: display the transcription stream using the head-worn display (paragraph 70, “application engine 440 and rendering engine 422 may generate and render for display a user interface for displaying transcription and/or additional data”).
Since Boekweg and Cheung are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of display a transcription on an HMD display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boekweg in view of Aldred, and further in view of Shakil et al. (USPG 2014/0222526, hereinafter Shakil).
Regarding claim 10, Boekweg fails to explicitly disclose, however, Shakil teaches computer program product of claim 1, wherein the device includes a head-worn device and the display includes a head-worn display, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: display the summary using the head-worn display (see claim 15, “at a head-mounted display of a head-mounted computing device worn by the provider, wherein rendering of the summary at the head-mounted display prevents the patient from viewing the summary”).
Since Boekweg and Shakil are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of display a summary on an HMD display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boekweg in view of Aldred, and further in view of Asi et al. (USPG 2023/0360640, hereinafter Asi).
Regarding claim 17, Boekweg fails to explicitly disclose, however, Asi teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: storing the summary with the summary request as labeled training data; and training the model using the labeled training data (paragraph 34, using text and keywords as data labeled with predetermined summaries to train a ML model).
Since Boekweg and Asi are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of training ML model to summarize text. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claim 18, Bowekweg further discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: detecting a second summary request using the model after the training; and summarizing second extracted text using the model (see claim 1 above; second summary request is merely a second request to summarize a second using the trained ML model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoki et al. (USPG 2025/0168276) teach a method for transcribing audio to text and then summarizing the text. Song et al. (USPG 2021/0286951, hereafter Song) teaches summarizing text using a generative model. These references are considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
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 HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
