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 .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 18/862,092 filed on October 31, 2024. Claims 1 to 30 are currently pending with the application.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-23, 25-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (US 2021/0383799) Filed on Dec. 9, 2021 in view of Blair (US 20140096033) Published on Apr. 3, 2014.
As per Claims 1, 17 and 21, Hewitt teaches a computer program product, 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:
receive a transcription stream including transcribed text; (See para.29, a summarization application receives messages from the messaging application and processes the messages to generate a headline and a summary; as taught by Hewitt)
input the transcription stream into a summarization machine learning (ML) model to obtain a summary stream including summarized text; (See para.128, wherein a second machine learning model generates keywords used to generate a summary; as taught by Hewitt)
render, on a user interface (UI), a stream selector; (See para.125, Alternatively, the summary generator 1102 can store the summary in memory and the user profile filter 1106 accesses the summary from memory for generating an updated summary or sub-summary. In some embodiments, the sub-summary is output through the hyperlink generator 1114, which is displayed with the summary, for example on panel 314 in FIG. 3. The hyperlink, if activated by a user, causes the panel 314 to display the sub-summary.; as taught by Hewitt)
receive, via the stream selector, at least one selected stream of the transcription stream and the summary stream; and cause a display, on the UI, of the at least one selected stream; (See para.125, Alternatively, the summary generator 1102 can store the summary in memory and the user profile filter 1106 accesses the summary from memory for generating an updated summary or sub-summary. In some embodiments, the sub-summary is output through the hyperlink generator 1114, which is displayed with the summary, for example on panel 314 in FIG. 3. The hyperlink, if activated by a user, causes the panel 314 to display the sub-summary.; as taught by Hewitt)
However, Hewitt fails to teach stream selector icon.
On the other hand, Blair teaches stream selection icon; (See fig.5, para.136; Each constituent message can be expanded to show in full (or to a maximum preferred size, within which a scrollable area allows larger messages to be shown a part at a time) or collapsed to a single line summary as has been done here for an intermediate reply (29); as taught by Blair)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Hewitt, by including the teachings of Blair relating to the summarization of text messages and expanding the text using an icons to all single click changes to control the data display (See para.215 as taught by Blair)
As per Claims 2, 12, 18 and 28, The combination of Hewitt and Blair teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: render the stream selector icon as a toggle having a transcription position for selecting the transcription stream and a summary position for selecting the summary stream. (See Blair fig.5 and para.144, The user may click on controls (33), (34) to expand or collapse a message respectively. In so doing, the control will toggle between (33) and (34) or vice versa; as taught by Blair)
As per Claims 4 and 14, The combination of Hewitt and Blair teaches he computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: render, using the UI, a stream type indicator identifying the at least one selected stream as being either the transcription stream or the summary stream; (See Blair fig.5 and para.144, The user may click on controls (33), (34) to expand or collapse a message respectively. In so doing, the control will toggle between (33) and (34) or vice versa; when it’s the summary the + sign will appear vs the – sign on the icon when the full text is displayed as taught by Blair)
As per Claims 6, 16, 20, 25 and 26, The combination of Hewitt and Blair the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: render, using the UI, a scroll bar in conjunction with the at least one selected stream; and retrieve an earlier portion of the at least one selected stream in response to movement of the scroll bar; (See para.150, iii. Where the whole text of the expanded message is not wholly visible (e.g. scroll bars are needed) the scrollable area will be moved automatically so as to show the start of the inserted text; as taught by Blair)
As per Claim 7, The combination of Hewitt and Blair the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the at least one selected stream includes both the transcription stream and the summary stream; (See fig.5, wherein the stream on display includes both the summary and the full text; as taught by Blair)
As per Claims 10, 22, 23, 27 and 30, the combination of Hewitt and Blair teaches the computer program product of claim 1, 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 at least one entity within the at least one selected stream; (See para.33, The messaging application transmits the multi-modal messages to the summarization application. In the illustrated embodiment, the summarization application comprises a modality recognition and division MRAD module for dividing the input message stream into two modalities, referred to hereafter as a text component and a media component. In some embodiments, the MRAD module comprises modules for identifying and distinguishing the textual portions of the message stream from the media components. For example, in some embodiments, the MRAD module comprises a story segment identifier SSI module for recognizing and outputting video elements, an audio identifier AI module for identifying and outputting audio elements, and a text identifier TI module for identifying and outputting the text components; as taught Hewitt)
associate the at least one entity with at least one action; (See para.40, the summarization application also comprises an image classifier module, a text analysis module, a headline generator, and a combined element summary generator. In some such embodiments, a media component and text component are output from the MRAD module to the image classifier module and the text analysis module, respectively; as taught by Hewitt)
render the at least one selected stream with the at least one entity being visually highlighted; (See fig.5, wherein the summary provided is displayed with highlighted info; as taught by Blair)
receive a selection of the at least one entity; (See Blair fig.5 and para.144, The user may click on controls (33), (34) to expand or collapse a message respectively. In so doing, the control will toggle between (33) and (34) or vice versa; when it’s the summary the + sign will appear vs the – sign on the icon when the full text is displayed as taught by Blair)
and invoke the at least one action; (See Blair fig.5 and para.144, The user may click on controls (33), (34) to expand or collapse a message respectively. In so doing, the control will toggle between (33) and (34) or vice versa; when it’s the summary the + sign will appear vs the – sign on the icon when the full text is displayed as taught by Blair)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (US 2021/0383799) Filed on Dec. 9, 2021 in view of Blair (US 20140096033) Published on Apr. 3, 2014 and further in view of Behre et al. (20230352009) filed on Apr. 29, 2022
As per Claims 3 and 13, The combination of Hewitt and Blair fails to teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: render, using the UI and when the at least one selected stream includes the summary stream, a stream status indicator providing a status of the summary stream as currently processing the transcription stream using the summarization ML model.
On the other hand Behre teaches render, using the UI and when the at least one selected stream includes the summary stream, a stream status indicator providing a status of the summary stream as currently processing the transcription stream using the summarization ML model; (See para.97, the system can send metadata with the segments that reflect which type of segment it is (e.g., an initial segment, partial segment, formatted segment, final segment, etc.) That metadata can be used by the display system to render the content/segments with corresponding fonts according to predetermined display schemes to reflect the processing status of the rendered text; as taught by Behre)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Hewitt and Blair, by including the teachings of Behre relating the displaying of the status to facilitate the tracking and rendering process of displaying the status (See para.97 as taught by Behre)
Claims 5, 15, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (US 2021/0383799) Filed on Dec. 9, 2021 in view of Blair (US 20140096033) Published on Apr. 3, 2014 and further in view of O’Neill et al. (2002/0118703) Published on Aug. 29, 2002.
As per Claims 5, 15, 19 and 24, the combination of Hewitt and Blair fails to teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: store the transcription stream in a transcription buffer; and store the summary stream in a summary buffer.
On the other hand O’Neill teaches store the transcription stream in a transcription buffer; and store the summary stream in a summary buffer; (See Fig.4, teaching the storage of direct stream in application buffers and storing summary information in summary buffer; as taught by O’Neill)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Hewitt and Blair, by including the teachings of O’Neill relating the usage of separate buffer for messages to save bandwidth (See para.8, as taught by O’Neill)
Claims 8 and 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (US 2021/0383799) Filed on Dec. 9, 2021 in view of Blair (US 20140096033) Published on Apr. 3, 2014 and further in view of Lyren. (2020/0074746) Published on Mar, 5 2020.
As per Claim 8, The combination of Hewitt and Blair fails to teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: translate the at least one selected stream into a selected language for display using the UI.
On the other hand, Lyren teaches translate the at least one selected stream into a selected language for display using the UI; (See para. 130, After the letter is written, the user dawns a wearable electronic device, selects French language, and views letter with the wearable electronic device. The English text of the letter is translated into French that appears through a display of the wearable electronic device. Thus, as the user views the letter on his notebook computer with the wearable electronic device; as taught by Lyren)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Hewitt and Blair, by including the teachings of Lyren relating of the display on wearable device to facilitate the use of head mounted devices like GOOGLE glasses (see para.40, as taught by Lyren)
As per Claims 9 and 29, the combination of Hewitt, Blair and Lyren teaches The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one computing device, are further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: cause the display of the at least one selected stream on a head-mounted device; (See para. 130, After the letter is written, the user dawns a wearable electronic device, selects French language, and views letter with the wearable electronic device. The English text of the letter is translated into French that appears through a display of the wearable electronic device. Thus, as the user views the letter on his notebook computer with the wearable electronic device, See Abstract wherein the wearable device is worn on the head device ; as taught by Lyren)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERIEF BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)272-9782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, 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, Cordelia Zecher can be reached on 571-272-7771. 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.
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights