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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
(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 1, 9, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Agassi: 11398232 hereinafter Aga.
Regarding claim 1
Aga teaches:
A method, comprising: generating audio data corresponding to a medical visit (Aga: Abstract; Col 1:35-1:45, 11:22-11:40; 15:44-15:50, 15:63-16:10; Fig 9, 10: system receives audio representative of a voice conversation;; clinical data extracted therefrom);
receiving a duration value (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20; Claims 1, 7, 14: system configures a segmentation time of a determined interval for the conversation audio; such as based on a computation of memory size—the subsequent segmenting function receives a duration value as an input); and
segmenting, by a processing device, the audio data into a plurality of audio data segments having a duration equal to or greater than the duration value (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20: system segments the clinical conversation with respect to the determined interval based on the predetermined segment threshold).
Regarding claims 9, 15—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agassi: 11398232 hereinafter Aga further in view of Knighton: 9571638 hereinafter Kni.
Regarding claim 1
Aga teaches:
A method, comprising: generating audio data corresponding to a medical visit (Aga: Abstract; Col 1:35-1:45, 11:22-11:40; 15:44-15:50, 15:63-16:10; Fig 9, 10: system receives audio representative of a voice conversation;; clinical data extracted therefrom);
receiving a duration value (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20; Claims 1, 7, 14: system configures a segmentation time of a determined interval for the conversation audio; such as based on a computation of memory size); and
segmenting, by a processing device, the audio data into a plurality of audio data segments having a duration equal to or greater than the duration value (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20: system segments the clinical conversation with respect to the determined interval based on the predetermined segment threshold).
Aga may not explicitly discuss the receipt of duration or segment length parameters.
In a related field of endeavor Kni teaches a system and method, comprising: generating audio data (Kni: Col 13:44-14:50; Fig 6: system receives an audio signal determines segments based thereon);
receiving a duration value (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49, 10:48-10:51; Fig 2-4, 6: rule(s) operate(s) to impose a segment length said rule determined based on an operating profile for a speech to text communication assistant which limit the duration parameter to a minimum and maximum segment duration); and
segmenting, by a processing device, the audio data into a plurality of audio data segments having a duration equal to or greater than the duration value (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49, 10:48-10:51, 13:44-14:50; Fig 2-4, 6: system operates to segment the audio based on the received values such as for providing to a transcription server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the receipt of segment length as taught or suggested by Kni to thereby improve Aga medical transcription device and method for at least the purpose of optimizing compute over regularized window sizes; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting the plurality of audio data segments for transcription by a transcription server (Aga: Abstract; Col 1:35-1:45, 5:45-5:51, 6:60-6:63, 7:5-7:12, 11:22-11:40; Fig 1A: segments passed downstream to a NLP application operative of a transcription service such as upon a remote server or separate networked device); (Kni: Col 5:10-5:39, 12:62-13:22; Fig 1A: system conveys information to a communication assistant upon a networked device such as a server);
wherein the duration value is based on a transcription speed at which the audio data can be transcribed by the transcription server (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20: system configured to optimize transcription or other output speed by performing segmentation); (Kni: Col 20:53-21:7: system operates to improve transcription speed by a remote, networked device which depends from the specified size of the duration window and adapts with respect to detected transcription speed). The claim is considered obvious over Aga as modified by Kni as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Aga and/or Kni to the modified device of Aga and Kni; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the duration value is received prior to generating the audio data (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49: system set up to allow a maximum segment length, optimize for a length window, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Aga as modified by Kni as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Aga and/or Kni to the modified device of Aga and Kni; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein segmenting the audio data includes detecting a silence between the plurality of audio data segments (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49, 13:67-14:5: system operates to detect silence and segment based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Aga as modified by Kni as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Aga and/or Kni to the modified device of Aga and Kni; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 4, wherein the silence is detected when the audio data has a noise level less than 32 dB for at least 100 milliseconds (Aga: Col 11:8-11:20: a segment end is identified with respect to a segment end time); (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49, 13:65-14:5, 14:42-14:50, etc.: a segment is ended by a silence such as detected at the end of a sentence which is quantified with respect to a minimum segment length determined in seconds, fractions thereof). Examiner considers the setting of a decibel and timewise limit to define silence such as the recited less than 32 dB for more than .1 second, obvious as a matter of design choice. An average skilled practitioner would have recognized the need to quantify the segmenting silence taught or suggested by Aga in view of Kni; silence is generally accepted to be approximately 40 dB or less, the sound of a whisper in a quiet environment and would be expected to persist for a noticeable time, such as greater than the 10-100 microseconds necessary to perceive silence which would certainly be within the capability of a practitioner possessed of Aga in view of Kni which defines a sub-second minimum range; the lack of an explicit disclosure of the specific decibel and time values neither renders Aga in view of Kni unsatisfactory for the recited purpose nor changes the principle of operation thereof. As such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ and/or attempt to employ a three minute window as a matter of a design choice on the part of a designer or implementor of the taught or suggest system and method; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 4, wherein the silence occurs between the duration value and an upper limit value following a beginning of the generated audio data (Kni: Col 8:7-8:49: rule imposes a minimum length below which segments grouped and a max length above which segments are parsed and a silence based cut which operates to separate segments). The claim is considered obvious over Aga as modified by Kni as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Aga and/or Kni to the modified device of Aga and Kni; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 6, wherein the duration value is 1 minute (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20: the utility of a 1 minute value discussed). The claim is considered obvious over Aga as modified by Kni as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Aga and/or Kni to the modified device of Aga and Kni; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Aga in view of Kni teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 6, wherein the upper limit value is 3 minutes. Aga in view of Kni discusses permutation of an upper limit value but not to a three minute duration. Examiner considers the setting of a three minute upper limit obvious as a matter of design choice. An average skilled practitioner would have recognized the need to optimize throughput in the recited segmenting; which would certainly be within the capability of a practitioner possessed of Aga in view of (Aga: Col 10:57-11:20: a maximum length may be subject to optimization); and the lack of an explicit disclosure of a 3 minute window neither renders Aga in view of Kni unsatisfactory for the recited purpose nor changes the principle of operation thereof. As such It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ and/or attempt to employ a three minute window as a matter of a design choice on the part of a designer or implementor of the taught or suggest system and method; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9, 15—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, 16—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, 17—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, 18—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6041227: silence defined as below 43dB with respect to 20 millisecond frames.
20260018179: silence exists when a signal is less than a threshold decibel level for a given window of time in milliseconds.
20210151028: silence defined in terms of 100 millisecond frames below 60 dB
20180342235: further reference to a system operative to perform the independent claims.
20040064317: further reference to a system operative to perform the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights