DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Figure 1, ‘Trascriptions Server 106’ should be ‘Transcription Server 106’.
In Figure 5, Step 508, ‘transmit’ could be capitalized as ‘Transmit’ for consistency with Steps 502 to 506.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 sets forth a limitation of “based on the sequence identification number and the second sequence identification number”, where “the sequence identification number” does not have clear antecedent basis. Here, “the sequence identification number” could be referring to “a sequence identification number” of claim 7 or “a second sequence identification number” of claim 8. Applicants could change “a sequence identification number” to “a first sequence identification number”, and change “based on the sequence identification number and the second sequence identification number” to “based on the first sequence identification number and the second sequence identification number”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 to 3, 6, 9 to 11, 13, 15 to 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johns et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,305,551).
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 15, Johns et al. discloses a method, system, and software product for transmitting audio recordings from a recording device to a server, comprising:
“a memory storing instructions; and a processing device to execute the instructions to cause the system to:” – embodiments of a scribe system include a digital scribe server 50 that comprises a memory 52 and a processor 54, wherein the server is a computer that operates a software product 56 stored on memory that functions to operate the entire scribe system on the digital server 50 (column 5, lines 36 to 43: Figure 4);
“generate audio data corresponding to a medical visit” – a plurality of recording devices record speech of a user into a recorded audio file (“audio data”) (Abstract); doctors often make dictation notes and record them on a hand held voice recorder, wherein the doctor then uploads the sound file and sends it to his or her transcriptionist in order to place his notes into a written note for the patient file and medical records (column 1, lines 11 to 21); an audio file is transcribed and the transcribed information is entered into an electronic medical record of a patient (column 2, lines 32 to 34); particularly in a health related field, wherein the information includes medical history of a patient, a voice file must be encrypted locally on recording device 10 and on server 50 in order to comply with HIPAA policies (column 3, lines 24 to 27: Figure 1); each recording device 10 may be used by a different doctor working in a hospital (column 4, lines 54 to 57: Figure 1); software product 56 may receive data from a recording device 10 in the form of a recorded audio file (column 5, lines 63 to 64: Figure 4); method 60 includes a step of starting a recording function of a recording device; once recording device initiates the recording function, the device records a user speaking into a microphone of the recording device, and the recording device encrypts the audio file as it is being recorded (column 6, lines 48 to 58: Figure 5: Steps 61 to 64); here, recording an audio file of a medical record of a patient history by a doctor working in a hospital is “generating audio data of a medical visit”; that is, a patient is visiting the doctor at the hospital and the doctor records the medical history during a ‘visit’ of a patient with the doctor;
“transmit the audio data to a server” – a scribe system includes a network connection between the server and the plurality of recording devices; each recording device transfers the recorded audio file to the server through the network connection in response to completion of the recording the audio file (Abstract); a recording device transmits the recorded audio file through a network connection to server 50 (column 5, lines 64 to 66: Figure 4); once processing the recorded audio file is complete, method 60 comprises transmitting the recorded audio file to a server (column 7, lines 14 to 16: Figure 5: Step 65);
“receive a notification indicating whether the audio data was received by the server” – a server confirms successful transmission to the recording device (Abstract); a server confirms successful transmission to the recording device in response to operation of the software product (column 2, lines 17 to 19); software product 56 accesses the audio file and processes it in order to determine if the audio file is proper, has transferred correctly, and if the transfer is correctly made, saves the file to server 50; if the transmission of the audio file is not completed properly, software product 56 sends a notification to recording device 10 (column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 5: Figure 4); transmitting the recorded audio file to a server may include steps of notifying the recording device of successful or unsuccessful transmission of the recorded audio file (column 7, lines 20 to 24: Figure 5: Step 65);
“in response to the notification, cache or delete the audio data” – prior art systems do not enable a recording device that is remote and caches voice data locally on the device while transmitting the voice file to a remote server (column 1, lines 54 to 58); removable memory 16 operates to store voice files that are recorded by a user using recording device 10; removable memory 16 operates as a cache of information and voice files recorded on recording device 10 (column 3, lines 13 to 20: Figure 2); if the transmission of the audio file is not completed properly, software product 56 sends a notification to recording device 10; a notification sent to recording device 10 provides operational instructions for recording device 10 to maintain the audio file in local storage (“in response to the notification, cache . . . by a processing device the audio data”) and queue the audio file for another transfer (column 6, lines 3 to 8: Figure 4); method 60 may include steps of notifying the recording device of successful or unsuccessful transmission of the recorded audio file; if the transmission notification of the recording device indicates successful transmission, the recording device automatically deletes the recorded audio file (“in response to the notification, . . . delete by a processing device the audio file”) to conform to HIPAA standards (column 7, lines 22 to 28: Figure 5); here, local storage of recording device operates as a cache, so that maintaining an audio file in local storage in response to a notification of unsuccessful transmission is “in response to the notification, cache . . . by a processing device the audio file”.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, Johns et al. discloses that if the transmission notification of the recording device indicates successful transmission, the recording device automatically deletes the recorded audio file (“wherein the audio data is deleted in response to the notification indicating that the audio data was received by the server”) to conform to HIPAA standards (column 7, lines 22 to 28: Figure 5).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Johns et al. discloses removable memory 16 operates to store voice files that are recorded by a user using recording device 10; removable memory 16 operates as a cache of information and voice files recorded on recording device 10 (column 3, lines 13 to 20: Figure 2); if the transmission of the audio file is not completed properly, software product 56 sends a notification to recording device 10; a notification sent to recording device 10 provides operational instructions for recording device 10 to maintain the audio file in local storage (“wherein the audio data is cached in response to the notification indicating that the audio file data was not received by the server”) and queue the audio file for another transfer (column 6, lines 3 to 8: Figure 4).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Johns et al. discloses that if the transmission of the audio file is not completed properly, software product 56 sends a notification to recording device 10; a notification sent to recording device 10 provides operational instructions for recording device 10 to maintain the audio file in local storage and queue the audio file for another transfer (column 6, lines 3 to 8: Figure 4). Here, queuing the audio file for another transfer in response to a notification that transmission of the audio file is not completed properly is equivalent to “transmitting the audio data to the server again in response to the notification indicating that the audio file was not received by the server”. That is, queuing for another transfer to the server is the same as “transmitting the audio file to the server again”.
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 4 to 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,305,551) in view of Gadoury et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0095802).
Johns et al. does not expressly disclose the limitations of “further comprising deleting the cached audio data after a period of time” or “wherein the period of time is greater than 48 hours.” However, Johns et al. discloses that recorded audio files are deleted to conform to HIPAA standards. (Column 7, Lines 24 to 28: Figure 5) Consequently, Johns et al. implies that audio data is deleted after some period of time to conform to HIPAA standards, but does not specify a period of time after which the audio files are deleted. Gadoury et al. teaches a system and method for generating personal documents from audio data for a meeting between a person and a professional which is received and transcribed to generate a transcription. When a professional is a health professional and the person is a patient, the generated document can be a medical document of a clinical note. (Abstract) Platform 100 can implement an anonymization model 192 configured to detect personal, private, sensitive, or protected information. Specifically, original transcriptions and/or meeting audio can be kept for a configurable length of time after being recorded and/or processed, e.g., 48 hours, and then is removed or replaced with anonymized or pseudo-anonymized transcription and/or meeting audio. (¶[0071]: Figures 1A to 1B) Gadoury et al., then, teaches that audio data is removed after a configurable length of time (“further comprising deleting the cached audio data after a period of time”) that can be 48 hours (“wherein the period of time is greater than 48 hours”). An objective is to generate high quality personal documentation from audio data with limited computational resources. (¶[0006]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to delete a cached audio file in Johns et al. after a period of time of 48 hours as taught by Gadoury et al. for a purpose of generating high quality personal documentation from audio data with limited computational resources.
Claims 7 to 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,305,551) in view of Yap et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,233,775).
Johns et al. discloses generating audio data of medical visits, but does not expressly disclose the limitations of “wherein the audio data is associated with a sequence identification number, and wherein the sequence identification number is transmitted to the server with the audio data” or “further comprising generating second audio data corresponding to the medical visit and associated with a second sequence identification number, wherein the audio data and the second audio data are transmitted to the server in an order based on the sequence identification number and the second sequence identification number.” However, it is well known to transmit sequence numbers with packets of audio data so that packets can be assembled in the proper order after they are transmitted via a packet switched network.
Specifically, Yap et al. teaches a method and system for protecting user privacy in audio content. Audio content is segmented to generate a plurality of audio blocks. Each audio block is associated with a sequence number based on a respective chronological position in the audio content. A textual transcript of the audio content is generated based on audio-to-text transcription and the sequence number for each audio block. (Abstract) Speech can include personally identifiable information (PII) including medical information. (Column 1, Lines 32 to 56) Yap et al., then, teaches “wherein the audio data is associated with a sequence identification number” and “further comprising generating second audio data . . . associated with a second sequence identification number, wherein the audio data and the second audio data are transmitted to the server in an order based on the sequence identification number and the second sequence identification number.” That is, audio blocks of a plurality of audio blocks are associated with a corresponding plurality of sequence numbers of the audio blocks so that there is a sequence identification number of a first audio block and a second sequence identification of a second audio block. An objective is to protect user privacy by scrambling data context during audio content processing. (Column 1, Lines 6 to 10) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a sequence identification number and a second sequence identification number of audio blocks as taught by Yap et al. with transmission of an audio file to a server in Johns et al. for a purpose of protecting user privacy by scrambling data during audio content processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Illic et al. discloses saving audio data for limited time periods. (Column 9, Lines 4 to 20)
Bang et al. discloses sequence numbers for audio packets. (¶[0146])
Larusson et al. discloses a similar platform for generating clinical notes between a patient and a health care provider at a server.
Bosnak et al. and Ruzevich et al. disclose related prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN LERNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 AM-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/MARTIN LERNER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2658 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights