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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims recite receiving, determining, comparing, labeling, transforming and analyzing data, which is very close to generic data processing (mental processing), which is non-statutory. In particular, the claims recite evaluating a conversation, comparing a pause to a threshold, classifying portions of the speech and analyzing the conversational turns. Transforming the transcript is merely reorganizing or relabeling information, which by itself does not provide the technological implementation needed to integrate the mental process concepts into a practical application.
The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Step 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is not a particular technological speech processing mechanism, improved diarization architecture or specific computer processing implementation recited.
The claims recite the abstract idea of analyzing and classifying conversational information based on conversational turns, which is mental processing. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, receiving a first transcript that includes a first speaker and a second speaker (can be done by a user merely gathering data); determining a boundary of a primary turn between the first speaker and the second speaker in the first transcript (can be done by a person reviewing a transcript and determine where each person starts and ends); comparing a time in which the first speaker paused to a threshold; when the threshold is met, determining speech by the second speaker should be labeled with a first label as the primary turn (can be done by a user comparing data that was collected to a threshold); when the threshold is not met, determining speech by the second speaker should be labeled with a second label as a secondary turn (can be done by comparing and classifying the second users speech as a primary turn); transforming the first transcript into a second transcript based on whether speech is labeled with the first label or the second label (can be done by a user reorganizing the transcript data); and analyzing the second transcript to generate an analysis of primary turns between the first speaker and the second speaker (can be done by a user analyzing the data).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (PGPUB 2023/0282224) in view of Serman et al. (PGPUB 20200120433), hereinafter referenced as Serman.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, Chun discloses a method, medium and apparatus, hereinafter referenced as a method comprising:
receiving a first transcript that includes a first speaker and a second speaker (identified conversations and identifies different participants. Realtime transcript summary associated with a primary conversation; p. 0086-0092);
determining a boundary of a primary turn between the first speaker and the second speaker in the first transcript (primary conversation containing multiple participants taking turns speaking and that the person identified as the primary speaker can change during the meeting; p. 0033-0034, 0061);
when the threshold is met, determining speech by the second speaker should be labeled with a first label as the primary turn; when the threshold is not met, determining speech by the second speaker should be labeled with a second label as a secondary turn (determining whether speech belongs to the primary or secondary conversation. Another participant can temporarily become the main speaker and that person’s speech is then included in the primary conversation rather than a secondary conversation; p. 0075);
transforming the first transcript into a second transcript based on whether speech is labeled with the first label or the second label (maintaining a separate transcription thread for identified conversations and can present a transcript associated with a selected primary or secondary conversation; p. 0091); and
analyzing the second transcript to generate an analysis of primary turns between the first speaker and the second speaker (analyzes identified conversations and generate a summary based on the text or audio of the primary and/or secondary conversations; p. 0096-0099), but does not specifically teach comparing a time in which the first speaker paused to a threshold. It is noted that Chun teaches detecting for changing associated with the primary conversation which can be triggered after a threshold of duration is met (p. 0064).
Serman discloses a method comprising comparing a time in which the first speaker paused to a threshold (evaluating the duration of a pause relative to a predefined temporal threshold in determining conversational turn taking; p. 0011-0027), to more accurately identify conversational turn transitions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to distinguish actual turn transitions from brief pauses or temporary interruptions.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein the first transcript that is received includes primary turns that are based on determining when the first speaker and the second speaker speak (recognizes own voice intervals and foreign voice intervals; p. 0060, 0082).
Regarding claim 3, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein the boundary is determined when a switch occurs from the first speaker speaking to the second speaker speaking or from the second speaker speaking to the first speaker speaking (switch transition from a turn of one speaker to a consecutive turn of another speaker in either direction; p. 0020).
Regarding claim 4, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein comparing the time in which the first speaker paused comprises:
determining a stop time in which the first speaker stopped speaking (measures temporal length of a pause; p. 0015-0026, 0052, 0082); and
determining a start time in which the first speaker started speaking after the first speaker stopped speaking (measures temporal length of a pause; p. 0015-0026, 0052, 0082)
Regarding claim 5, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein the time is based on the stop time and the start time (measures temporal length of a pause; p. 0015-0026, 0052, 0082).
Regarding claim 6, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above wherein Chun teaches the primary conversation take turns with the main speaker. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein the primary turn is when the first transcript switches from the first speaker to the second speaker, or vice versa (speaker to speaker switch; p. 0020).
Regarding claim 7, Chun discloses a method wherein the secondary turn is where speech from the second speaker or the first speaker does not cause a switch from the first speaker to the second speaker, or vice versa, and is in parallel with the first speaker or the second speaker (secondary conversation occurring simultaneously with the primary conversation including during pauses; p. 0078, 0091). In addition, Serman discloses overlap where both speakers speak simultaneously (p. 0019-0024, 0052).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Chun discloses a method further comprising: displaying the second transcript with primary turns and secondary turns (displays information associated with primary and secondary conversations and provide transcripts; p. 0076, 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 9, Chun discloses a method wherein:
speech associated with the primary turns is displayed in a first channel, and speech associated with the secondary turns is displayed in a second channel (selectable primary and secondary conversation options; p. 0036, 0059, 0084-0085).
Regarding claim 10, Chun discloses a method wherein speech in the first channel and speech in the second channel are visually separated (visually distinguishes separate conversations; p. 0072-0073).
Regarding claim 11, Chun discloses a method wherein when the threshold is not met, determining the speech by the second speaker should be labeled with a second label as the secondary turn comprises:
adjusting the speech from being labeled as the primary turn to being labeled as the secondary turn (reidentify conversation status; p. 0038-0039, 0110-0118).
Regarding claim 14, Chun discloses a method wherein analyzing the second transcript comprises:
determining an analysis of the second transcript based on the primary turns and secondary turns (analyzes primary and secondary conversations; p. 0086, 0096-0099).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Serman and in further view of Gilbert (PGPUB 2023/0191992).
Regarding claim 12, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Serman discloses a method wherein the threshold comprises .5 seconds (p. 0026), but does not specifically teach 1.5.
Gilbert discloses a method wherein the threshold comprises 1.5 (p. 0050, 0057), to provide a predetermined duration of silence for identifying a pause in a conversation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to provide a known suitable temporal threshold.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Serman and in further view of Bratt et al. (PGPUB 2022/0115001), hereinafter referenced as Bratt.
Regarding claim 13, Chun in view of Serman discloses a method as described above, but does not specifically teach a method further comprising: when the threshold is not met, labeling a word in the speech by the second speaker with a type of secondary speech.
Bratt discloses the method comprising:
when the threshold is not met, labeling a word in the speech by the second speaker with a type of secondary speech (backchannel utterances made by a listener whole another participant has the conversational floor; p. 0003, 0014, 0152), in order to more accurately characterize the conversational function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to improve the analysis of conversational interactions.
Regarding claim 15, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Bratt discloses a method wherein analyzing the second transcript comprises:
analyzing a type label for a word labeled as the secondary turn to determine the analysis (backchannel utterances made by a listener whole another participant has the conversational floor; p. 0003, 0014, 0152).
Regarding claim 16, Chun discloses a method wherein:
the type label is determined from a plurality of types, and the type label is determined based on a word in the speech (backchannel utterances made by a listener whole another participant has the conversational floor; p. 0003, 0014, 0152).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Ponting et al. discloses conversation structure analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights