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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 28, 38, 48, 53, 60 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 28 and 60 recite “AI program”. An acronym “AI” must be spelled out before using the acronym.
Claim 38 recites “to project accent-corrected speech in the first language from the loudspeaker”. It appears applicant intended to express “to the loudspeaker”
Claim 53 recites “a PAPR hood”. The acronym “PAPR” must be spelled out before using.
Claims 26, 48 and 61 recites “another party” several times. When referring back to the previously mentioned “another party”, a definite article must be used.
Claim 61 recites “mask work by the user”. It appears that the recited “work” is a misspelling word of “worn”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-30, 38, 49-53, 57-58, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites “the duration of time”, which has insufficient antecedent basis. The antecedent limitations never define any duration time. Claims 27-30 and 38 depend from claim 26. These dependent claims fail to remedy deficiency of claim 26.
Claim 49 recites “the microphone”. Since antecedent basis limitations define “a first microphone” and “a second microphone”. Since there are two microphones, it is unclear which microphone the claimed “the microphone” refer to. Claims 50-53 depend from the rejected claim 49. These dependent claims 50-53 are also rejected.
Claim 57 recites “the back of the first housing”. Since antecedent limitations never define a back of the first housing. The claimed “the back” has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 57-58 and claim 61 recite “the housing”. Since antecedent limitations define two housings (“a first housing” and “a second housing”). It is unclear which housing a claimed “the housing” refers to.
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 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Almagro (US PG Pub. 2010/0250231, hereinafter referred to as Almagro).
Almagro discloses a wearable communication device with speech-to-speech translation function (Almagro, [0007-0009], Fig. 63 / Fig. 64). Almagro further discloses the wearable communication device has two microphones. One internal microphone is used to receive speech from the user who wears the device and an external microphone is used to receive speech from foreigner’s speech (Almagro, [0007-0009]). Almagro further discloses using loudspeaker to output translated speech to a foreigner and wearing a headset by the user (Almagro, [0007-0009], Fig. 63 / Fig. 64). Almagro further discloses using wireless communication (Almagro, [0155-0157], Fig. 69-72). The examiner replicates Fig. 63 / 64 from Almagro below.
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner notices that many limitations are recited as “optionally”. These limitations recited as “optional” are not required. In addition, cited prior art references only need to teach ONE alternative recited using alternative language “OR”.
Regarding claim 26, Almagro discloses a system for facilitating conversation between a user and another party, each speaking different languages (Almagro, Fig. 63 / 64), comprising:
a communication device worn by a user, the communication device (Almagro, Fig. 63 / 64) comprising:
a first microphone to receive speech from the user in a first language spoken by the user (Almagro, [0007-0009], [0104], Fig. 63, an internal microphone for receiving speech from the use who is wearing the headset);
a loudspeaker to project translated speech from the user to another party into a second language spoken by another party (Almagro, [0007-0009], [0136], Fig. 63, outputting a translated speech to a foreigner);
a second microphone to receive speech from another party in the second language (Almagro, [0007-0009], [0137], Fig. 64, an external microphone is used to receive speech from a foreigner);
a headphone speaker to project translated speech from another party to the user in the first language (Almagro, [0007-0008], [0147], Fig. 63 / 64, the user wears a headset to receive voice translated from a foreigner);
optionally, a digital signal processor (Almagro, [0096], processor / CPU and memory);
a wireless circuit assembly (Almagro, [0097], wireless communication, Fig. 69); and
a power source (Almagro, [0096], power supply or battery);
a wireless computing device wirelessly linked to the communication device (Almagro, Fig. 71-72, headsets, cell phones and servers communicate using wireless technique);
optionally, a cloud computer connected with the wireless computing device over the internet (Almagro, [0012-0013], communicating with remote translation facility for translating untranslated speech);
a translation program running on the communication device, wireless computing device, OR cloud computer to translate spoken words of the user, in the first language, to the second language in real time (Almagro, [0128-0129], [0146], Fig. 67), and
optionally, language source code stored on one or more of the communication device, wireless computing device, or cloud computer (Almagro, [0146-0149], Fig. 67).
Independent claim 48 recites similar limitations as claim 26. Claim 48 is slightly narrower by using “a mask worn by a user” instead of a broader “a communication device”. Almagro discloses a wearable communication device that could translate between different spoken languages (Almagro, Fig. 63 / Fig. 64). Almagro further discloses the wearable device covers his / her mouth (Almagro, [0007-0009], Fig. 63). Under a broadest and reasonable interpretation, a which meets a claimed “a mask”. Almagro does not explicitly mention “a mask worn by a user”.
Regarding claim 27, Almagro further discloses the translation program is an Al translation program (Almagro, [0128-0130], automated machine translator).
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 of this title, 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 48, 54-56, and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Almagro in view of Prescott (US Pat. 11,800,268, referred to as Prescott).
Independent claim 48 recites similar limitations as claim 26. Claim 48 is narrower than claim 26 by using a term “a mask worn by a user” instead of a broad term “a communication device”. Almagro discloses a wearable communication device that could translate between different spoken languages (Almagro, Fig. 63 / Fig. 64). Almagro further discloses the wearable communication device covers a user’s mouth (Almagro, [0007-0009], Fig. 63). Although Almagro meets a claimed “a mask”, Almagro does not explicitly mention “a mask worn by a user”. Prescott discloses a face mask has built-in microphone and loudspeaker to allow a user to communicate (Prescott, Col. 2, lines 34-50, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Almagro’s teaching with Prescott’s teaching to implement a speech-to-speech translation using a face mask. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that a user (e.g., a doctor) who is wearing a face mask could communicate with a foreigner who is speaking a different language.
Regarding claims 54-56, Almagro in view of Prescott further discloses the first microphone is contained within a first housing and wherein the second microphone is contained within a second housing operably connected with the first housing (Almagro, [0007-0009], [0122]).
Regarding claim 59, Almagro in view of Prescott further discloses the mask is selected from a dust mask or a filter mask (Almagro, Col. 1, lines 34-45, face mask for filtering breathed air).
Regarding claim 60, Almagro in view of Prescott further discloses the translation program is an Al translation program (Almagro, [0128-0130], automated machine translator).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Almagro in view of Nagao (US PG Pub. 2008/0077390, referred to as Nagao).
Regarding claims 28-30, these dependent claims recite limitations related to estimate duration time for generating a translation (claimed “a latency evaluation”) and adjusting a timing of conversation.
Almagro discloses a real time speech-to-speech translation (Almagro, [0140]). Almagro does not disclose limitations recited in claims 28-29. Nago discloses estimating translation delay due to translation and display the delay (Nago, [0012], [0063-0064], [0329], estimating translation delay). Nago further discloses adjusting timing of display video so that the video / image is synchronized with translated speech (Nago, [0098], control timing of output speech; [0180], [0247], [0314], Fig. 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Almagro’s teaching with Nago’s teaching to estimate and display translation delay. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the conversation is smooth between two people who are speaking different languages (Nago, [0107], control output speech timing during a video conference; [0336], [0342], Fig. 41).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Almagro in view of Dirac et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0174595, referred to as Dirac).
Regarding claim 38, Almagro discloses a speech-to-speech translation to enable conversations between people who speak different language (Almagro, Fig. 63 / 64). Limitations recited in claim 38 are related to translating accent language. Almagro does not disclose limitation recited in claim 38.
Dirac discloses even two persons speak the same language, sometime it is heard to understand each other because of accent (Dirac, [0001]). Dirac discloses translating a language between a first accent and a second accent (Dirac, [0017], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Almagro’s teaching with Dirac’s teaching to translate spoken language from a first accent to a second accent. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that people could understand each other even if they have different accents.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Almagro in view of Smith et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0238132, referred to as Smith).
Regarding claim 49, Almagro does not disclose using a magnetic to attaching a microphone to a housing.
Smith discloses a face mask with integrated communication system (Smith, [0007], Fig. 2). Smith discloses using magnetic fastener to attach a microphone to the face mask (Smith, [0013], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Almagro’s teaching with Smith’s teaching to use a magnetic fastener to attach a microphone. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because it is easier to attach a microphone using a magnetic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-53 and 57-58 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 61 would be allowable if overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner discovered several relevant prior art references that are related to one or more concepts disclosed by the instant application. These references are included in the attached PTO-892 form for completeness of the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights