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 .
Claims file 10-31-24
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10-31-24, 01-08-25, 03-06-26 was filed after the mailing date of the 10-31-24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24, 27, 31-34, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexandre de Brebisson (U.S. Publication) 20220036005 A1
Regarding claim 21, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches a method for audio editing, comprising: highlighting one or more invalid characters contained in a text corresponding to an audio in a predefined mode for the audio (In Fig 4, the media production platform [402] will label each filler word(s) in the transcript. Each filler word may be visually highlighted by being rendered in a different color, underlined, bolded, etc. See para 71);
detecting a deletion confirmation indication for at least one target invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (In Fig 7, the individual may indicate which words to be deleted by interacting with the word bar located along the bottom of the interface, see para 85);
and in response to detecting the deletion confirmation indication, deleting at least one audio segment corresponding to the at least one target invalid character from the audio (The media production platform [402] can make the appropriate adjustments to the underlying audio file, by deleting the portion (the segments) in which those word(s) are uttered, see para 85).
Regarding claim 22, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: recognizing a first invalid character from the text (In Fig 5, in Step 501 the developer input a filler word through the media production platform. Then the parameter is added to the filler word where a criterion must be satisfied for the rule to indicate that an occurrence of the filler word is presented, see para 72-73).
Regarding claim 23, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: determining a second invalid character in the text based on a user input (in Fig 5, the process [500] establishes a rule the selected a filler word inputted is given a rule to flag any repetitive works occur. The developer can select any filler word and assign a rule through the media production platform, see para 72-73. Also, in Fig 7, the developer can select which filler words (underlined) to be deleted by indicating with the word bar, see para 85. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any word can be selected based on user’s input and the process (Fig 5 [500]) can be replicated with any filler word.)
Regarding claim 24, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: providing the second invalid character (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71) and the text for training an invalid character recognition model (In Fig 2, in the media platform [210], each filler word is assigned a token and the labeling module [216] defines specific rules associated with a respective token. This process can be implemented into a model and trained based on the filler words, see para 46), the invalid character recognition model being trained to recognize an invalid character from an input text (Fig 2, the processing module [212] would receive the audio and apply speech recognition to audio content, and recreate a transcript that would then be used to identify invalid characters to be tokenized and labelled, see para 46).
Regarding claim 27, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: presenting a first number of the one or more invalid characters (In Fig 5, using the process [500], the user/developer can establish a rule (or parameter) for a filler word through the media production platform (Fig 4 [402]) upon encountering a reoccurred filler word, see para 72-73. This is further expanded by being the process [Fig 6 (600)], where the filler word is tokenized and the media production platform assigns a rule when the filler word occurs, para 78-80. One such rule is to visually highlight the corresponding word within the transcript when shown on an interface, see para 82).
Regarding claim 31, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches an electronic device (Fig 2 [200], computing device, para 41), comprising: at least one processing unit (Fig 2 [202], processor, para 41); and at least one memory (Fig 2 [204], memory, para 41) coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit (Memory houses instructions by the processor, see para 42), causing the device to perform acts comprising: highlighting one or more invalid characters contained in a text corresponding to an audio in a predefined mode for the audio (In Fig 4, the media production platform [402] will label each filler word(s) in the transcript. Each filler word may be visually highlighted by being rendered in a different color, underlined, bolded, etc. See para 71);
detecting a deletion confirmation indication for at least one target invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (In Fig 7, the individual may indicate which words to be deleted by interacting with the word bar located along the bottom of the interface, see para 85);
and in response to detecting the deletion confirmation indication, deleting at least one audio segment corresponding to the at least one target invalid character from the audio (The media production platform [402] can make the appropriate adjustments to the underlying audio file, by deleting the portion (the segments) in which those word(s) are uttered, see para 85).
Regarding claim 32, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: recognizing a first invalid character from the text (In Fig 5, in Step 501 the developer input a filler word through the media production platform. Then the parameter is added to the filler word where a criterion must be satisfied for the rule to indicate that an occurrence of the filler word is presented, see para 72-73).
Regarding claim 33, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: determining a second invalid character in the text based on a user input (in Fig 5, the process [500] establishes a rule the selected a filler word inputted is given a rule to flag any repetitive works occur. The developer can select any filler word and assign a rule through the media production platform, see para 72-73. Also, in Fig 7, the developer can select which filler words (underlined) to be deleted by indicating with the word bar, see para 85. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any word can be selected based on user’s input and the process (Fig 5 [500]) can be replicated with any filler word.)
Regarding claim 34, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: providing the second invalid character (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71) and the text for training an invalid character recognition model (In Fig 2, in the media platform [210], each filler word is assigned a token and the labeling module [216] defines specific rules associated with a respective token. This process can be implemented into a model and trained based on the filler words, see para 46), the invalid character recognition model being trained to recognize an invalid character from an input text (Fig 2, the processing module [212] would receive the audio and apply speech recognition to audio content, and recreate a transcript that would then be used to identify invalid characters to be tokenized and labelled, see para 46).
Regarding claim 37, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: presenting a first number of the one or more invalid characters (In Fig 5, using the process [500], the user/developer can establish a rule (or parameter) for a filler word through the media production platform (Fig 4 [402]) upon encountering a reoccurred filler word, see para 72-73. This is further expanded by being the process [Fig 6 (600)], where the filler word is tokenized and the media production platform assigns a rule when the filler word occurs, para 78-80. One such rule is to visually highlight the corresponding word within the transcript when shown on an interface, see para 82).
Regarding claim 40, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig 2 [204], memory, para 41) having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program being executable by a processor (Fig 2 [210], media production platform, para 41) to perform acts comprising: highlighting one or more invalid characters contained in a text corresponding to an audio in a predefined mode for the audio (In Fig 4, the media production platform [402] will label each filler word(s) in the transcript. Each filler word may be visually highlighted by being rendered in a different color, underlined, bolded, etc. See para 71);
detecting a deletion confirmation indication for at least one target invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (In Fig 7, the individual may indicate which words to be deleted by interacting with the word bar located along the bottom of the interface, see para 85);
and in response to detecting the deletion confirmation indication, deleting at least one audio segment corresponding to the at least one target invalid character from the audio (The media production platform [402] can make the appropriate adjustments to the underlying audio file, by deleting the portion (the segments) in which those word(s) are uttered, see para 85).
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 25-26, 28-29, 35-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandre de Brebisson (U.S. Publication) 20220036005 A1 in view of Mogilevsky (U.S. Patent) 5649222 A.
Regarding claim 25, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein detecting the deletion confirmation indication (In Fig 7, the individual indicates the words deleted using the word bar in the interface, see para 85) comprises: in response to receiving a deselecting indication for a third invalid character (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71) among the one or more invalid characters, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters (Note: In para 71, each filler word may be visually highlighted by being rendered in a different manner).
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach to receiving a deselecting indication, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters
Mogilevsky discloses to receiving a deselecting indication (The tool may prompt the user to replace, ignore, or edit the word, see Col 1 L17-18), removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters (the user has the option to ignore a misspelling (or flagged words) in certain type of words, where the background speller re-checks current misspelled word specified in the spelling table and changes the status of any misspelled words. See Col 11 L30-33. This shows that the user can override the automatically flagged character/word without deleting content and apply a known ignore & clear technique).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of to receiving a deselecting indication, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been to see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Regarding claim 26, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: in response to receiving a deselecting indication (In Fig 7, the individual indicates the words deleted using the word bar in the interface, see para 85) for a fourth invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71), of the fourth invalid character
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach ceasing or degrading highlighting
Mogilevsky discloses ceasing or degrading highlighting (the user has the option to ignored initially flags misspelled words, and the system rechecks specified words using the spelling table before changing their status. This result in rechecking the entire document before resetting the spelling table, see Col 11 L26-38. Note: that if a word added, all misspelling in the document has to be rechecked, so the highlighted words in this instance would cease being highlighted after being initially highlighted by the system. See Col 7 L1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of ceasing or degrading highlighting as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been for user will see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Regarding claim 28, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: in response to receiving a deselecting indication for at least one invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (The user can establish a rule to which filler word is highlighted through the media production platform [see para 71-72, 82] and choose to delete that character or word through the sound bar [para 85]),
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number.
Mogilevsky discloses determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number (the user has the option to ignored initially flagged misspelled words, and the system rechecks specified words using the spelling table before changing their status. This result in rechecking the entire document before resetting the spelling table, see Col 11 L26-38. A person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the user has the choice of which flagged words are to be deleted or ignored. Then the system will present a updated document reflecting the user’s decisions.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been for user will see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Regarding claim 29, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: in response to detecting the deletion confirmation indication (In Fig 7, the individual indicates the words deleted using the word bar in the interface, see para 85) for the at least one target invalid character, deleting the at least one target invalid character from the text, to obtain an updated text; and presenting the updated text (if a user deletes a segment from the transcript, the media platform (Fig 2 [210]) will automatically delete the corresponding segments from the file, para 47. Specifically, the media platform preforms that same action corresponding to a filler word, see 85).
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach deleting the at least one target invalid character from the text, to obtain an updated text;
Mogilevsky discloses deleting the at least one target invalid character from the text, to obtain an updated text (the user has the option to ignored initially flagged misspelled words, and the system rechecks specified words using the spelling table before changing their status. This result in rechecking the entire document before resetting the spelling table, see Col 11 L26-38. A person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that though the system identifies that flagged words, the user has the choice which can be deleted which will present a updated document corresponding to the user’s decisions.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of deleting the at least one target invalid character from the text, to obtain an updated text as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been for user will see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky. (Note: both Alexandre de Brebisson and Mogilevsky teach deletion of invalid characters/words that will affect the document (or transcript) and the document post editing will be the updated text for the user. Only Mogilevsky provides that user with control to override that system if they so desire)
Regarding claim 35, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein detecting the deletion confirmation indication (In Fig 7, the individual indicates the words deleted using the word bar in the interface, see para 85) comprises: in response to receiving a deselecting indication for a third invalid character (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71) among the one or more invalid characters, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters (Note: In para 71, each filler word may be visually highlighted by being rendered in a different manner).
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach to receiving a deselecting indication, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters
Mogilevsky discloses to receiving a deselecting indication (The tool may prompt the user to replace, ignore, or edit the word, see Col 1 L17-18), removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters (the user has the option to ignore a misspelling (or flagged words) in certain type of words, where the background speller re-checks current misspelled word specified in the spelling table and changes the status of any misspelled words. See Col 11 L30-33. This shows that the user can override the automatically flagged character/word without deleting content and apply a known ignore & clear technique).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of to receiving a deselecting indication, removing the third invalid character from the one or more invalid characters as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been to see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Regarding claim 36, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: in response to receiving a deselecting indication (In Fig 7, the individual indicates the words deleted using the word bar in the interface, see para 85) for a fourth invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (The developer can select a filler word, see para 71), of the fourth invalid character
de Brebisson does not explicitly teach ceasing or degrading highlighting
Mogilevsky discloses ceasing or degrading highlighting (the user has the option to ignored initially flags misspelled words, and the system rechecks specified words using the spelling table before changing their status. This result in rechecking the entire document before resetting the spelling table, see Col 11 L26-38. Note: that if a word added, all misspelling in the document has to be rechecked, so the highlighted words in this instance would cease being highlighted after being initially highlighted by the system. See Col 7 L1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of ceasing or degrading highlighting as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been for user will see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Regarding claim 38, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: in response to receiving a deselecting indication for at least one invalid character among the one or more invalid characters (The user can establish a rule to which filler word is highlighted through the media production platform [see para 71-72, 82] and choose to delete that character or word through the sound bar [para 85]),
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number.
Mogilevsky discloses determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number (the user has the option to ignored initially flagged misspelled words, and the system rechecks specified words using the spelling table before changing their status. This result in rechecking the entire document before resetting the spelling table, see Col 11 L26-38. A person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the user has the choice of which flagged words are to be deleted or ignored. Then the system will present a updated document reflecting the user’s decisions.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of determining a second number of invalid characters not being deselected among the one or more invalid characters; and modifying the presented first number to the second number as taught by Mogilevsky in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been for user will see any visible changes almost instantaneously. In Col 11 L33-35, in Mogilevsky.
Claims 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandre de Brebisson (U.S. Publication) 20220036005 A1 in view of Allibhai (U.S. Publication) 20220130427 A1.
Regarding claim 30, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches further comprising: after deleting the at least one audio (once the filler word is identified, the media production platform will reflect that change globally, making identical modification to the audio file, para 26)
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation
Allibhai discloses presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation (In Fig 5, the text segments are provided with a visual timestamp that indicates a time code, and this is applied to the audio track corresponding to the audio waveform [512]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they would be able to track the changes in the audio file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation as taught by Allibhai in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a convenient way for searching through a lengthy transcript to locate specific content. In para 101, in Allibhai.
Regarding claim 39, Alexandre de Brebisson teaches wherein the acts further comprise: after deleting the at least one audio (once the filler word is identified, the media production platform will reflect that change globally, making identical modification to the audio file, para 26)
Alexandre de Brebisson does not explicitly teach presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation
Allibhai discloses presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation (In Fig 5, the text segments are provided with a visual timestamp that indicates a time code, and this is applied to the audio track corresponding to the audio waveform [512]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they would be able to track the changes in the audio file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of presenting association information of the audio, the association information comprising at least one of a duration or a sound wave representation as taught by Allibhai in Alexandre de Brebisson’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a convenient way for searching through a lengthy transcript to locate specific content. In para 101, in Allibhai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Raghunathan (US Publication) 20050204293 A1 – provides group selection
Huber (US Publication) 20200273493 A1 – highlighting specific words
Rubin (US Patent) 9666208 B1 – editing wordings from voice transcript
Schubert (US Patent) 8959433 B2 – editing but using anchors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights