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
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s response to submission filed on 3/7/25. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are pending of which claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 are independent. As such, claims 1-6 and 8-13 have been examined.
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 1-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than implying the use of “general conventional computer”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to analyzing speech and/or performing speech to text, which is a mental process that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
providing, in real time, a sound stream corresponding to the text, the sound stream starting from a selected group of words, also called a second group of words, (e.g., looking at a prepared text and reading it out aloud, pick up the speech for the original speaker or person.)
selected in the text as a function of at least one result of a real-time analysis of captured speech, the result of the analysis being indicative of a first group of words currently being verbalized by a speaker, the first group of words and the second group of words being different groups of words. (e.g., analyzing the text in terms of hearing the speech live, and figure out when to jump in and continue the speech.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 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 limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the implied use of generic computer components (not explicitly claimed) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 may imply the use of generic computer components (not explicitly claimed), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 8 further recites “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for implementing the method”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites automatic reader claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 8 further recites “automatic reader”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites a user terminal claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 10 further recites “a user terminal”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 11-13 depend from independent claims 1, and 10 respectively, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claims 1 and 10, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 and 10 from above.
Claim 2 further recite: wherein the providing of the sound stream is triggered if interruption in the captured speech is detected. (e.g., determine if there is a paused or other interruption and then start speaking for the speaker, picking up where the speech was left off.)
Claim 3 further comprising: wherein the providing of the sound stream is interrupted if a resumption in the captured speech is detected. (e.g., speaker drops off, therefore the human resumes the speech.)
Claim 4 further recites: wherein the selected group of words, also called the second group of words is, in the text, identical to or consecutive to the group of words currently being verbalized by the speaker, also called the first group of words. (e.g., continuation of the speech.)
Claim 5 further recites: wherein the result of the real-time analysis is indicative of several groups of words successively verbalized by the speaker, and the selected group of words, also called the second group of words, is identical to or consecutive to a group of words closest to the an end of the text among the groups of words having been verbalized or currently being verbalized by the speaker. (e.g., listen to the speaker in real time, keep track of what is said, note the last few words said, and determine if the new words repeat or follow what was just said.)
Claim 6 further recites: wherein the method is implemented during a session and the selected group of words, also called the second group of words, is a group of words not appearing in the speech captured during the session and/or not appearing in a sound stream provided during the session prior to implementing of the method. (e.g., determine words that have not been said and notice new group of words.)
Claim 11 further recites: wherein the sound card is connected to one or more loudspeakers among the following: a loudspeaker of the user terminal, a loudspeaker of a device connected to the user terminal via a local area network. (e.g., providing a connection to a loud speaker.) [loud speaker of a user terminal is a generic computer component to produce sound]
Claim 12 further recites: further comprising a text display. (e.g., writing out the speech to text using pen and paper.) [even if the claim means a computer display, that is also a generic computer component to display text]
Claim 13 further recites: further comprising a real-time word processing device capable of highlighting a group of words in the text based on the result and of providing the text with the highlighted group of words to the display. (e.g., underline or highlight the text of the speech using pen and paper.) [word processing device is also a generic computer component]
In sum, claims 2-6 and 11-13 depend from claims 1, and 10 respectively, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-6 and 11-13 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-6 and 11-13: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-6 and 11-13 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant provided reference (US version) Mostow (US 5920838).
Regarding Claim 1, Mostow discloses: A method for automatically reading ([col. 2 lines 63-66] A reading tutor 10 constructed according to the teachings of the present invention is illustrated in FIG. 1. The tutor 10 listens to users read aloud and then offers assistance with reading difficulties.) a continuous text composed of several groups of words, the method comprising in real time, a sound stream corresponding to the text ([col. 3, lines 23-25] Novice readers can let the tutor 10 read a sentence first;), the sound stream starting from a selected group of words, also called a second group of words, selected in the text as a function of at least one result of a real-time analysis of captured speech, the result of the analysis being indicative of a first group of words currently being verbalized by a speaker, ([col. 4, lines 38-49] If the user has difficulty reading a phrase or sentence, the tutoring function 22 may play a fluent narration of it, pronounce the words one by one and invite the user to read along, present a textual or spoken paraphrase or explanation, or display a relevant image or video clip. The intervention chosen by the tutoring function 22 may employ synchronized audio and visual components which are implemented by a player 28. (10) Some tutoring function actions consist of several actions queued sequentially. For example, the tutoring function 22 can rescue the user by reading part of a sentence and then highlighting the next word. Those events are queued to the player 28 which performs them in order.) the first group of words and the second group of words being different groups of words. [the first group of words is where the user stumbles or having trouble, and the second group of words is where the tutor function comes to rescue]
Regarding Claim 2, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the providing of the sound stream is triggered if interruption in the captured speech is detected. (col. 2, lines 13-32, An input block implementing a plurality of functions such as silence detection, col. 3, lines 30-41, The listener determines when the user is speaking and when there is silence. col. 6, lines 57-67 – col. 7, lines 1-4, there are times when it may be appropriate for the tutor 10 to intervene twice in a row; for example, when the student struggles with a word or is unsure of what to do next. The appropriate length of time to wait during a silence before intervening may depend on several factors, including the student, the difficulty of the text, and the last action taken by the student and the tutor 10.)
Regarding Claim 3, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 2,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the providing of the sound stream is interrupted if a resumption in the captured speech is detected. (col. 3, lines 30-41, The listener determines when the user is speaking and when there is silence. col. 6, lines 57-67 – col. 7, lines 1-4, there are times when it may be appropriate for the tutor 10 to intervene twice in a row; for example, when the student struggles with a word or is unsure of what to do next. The appropriate length of time to wait during a silence before intervening may depend on several factors, including the student, the difficulty of the text, and the last action taken by the student and the tutor 10.)
Regarding Claim 4, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the selected group of words, also called the second group of words is, in the text, identical to or consecutive to the group of words currently being verbalized by the speaker, also called the first group of words. ([col. 4, lines 38-49] If the user has difficulty reading a phrase or sentence, the tutoring function 22 may play a fluent narration of it, pronounce the words one by one and invite the user to read along, present a textual or spoken paraphrase or explanation,)
Regarding Claim 5, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the result of the real-time analysis is indicative of several groups of words successively verbalized by the speaker, and the selected group of words, also called the second group of words, is identical to or consecutive to a group of words closest to the an end of the text among the groups of words having been verbalized or currently being verbalized by the speaker. ([col. 4, lines 22-33] Alternatively, the word could be rescued by reading the words leading up to it.)
Regarding Claim 6, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the method is implemented during a session and the selected group of words, also called the second group of words, is a group of words not appearing in the speech captured during the session and/or not appearing in a sound stream provided during the session prior to implementing of the method. (col. 4, lines 22-44) presenting a rhyming word, presenting a definition, or spoken paraphrase)
Regarding Claim 8, Mostow discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a program for implementing the method to claim 1. (col. 8, lines 23-29) In FIG. 1, the block 20, tutoring function 22, student model 26, and player 28 may be referred to as the tutor component of the tutor 10. The tutor 10 may be implemented in software. When implemented in software, the tutor 10 may reside on the main memory of the PC 12. The tutor 10 may also be carried by any type of suitable memory device or may be accessed through a network.) The method of claim 1 is already disclosed earlier by Mostow, see claim mapping in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Mostow discloses: An automatic reader comprising a provider of a sound stream in real-time (see fig. 1, the computer would be an reader), the rest of the claim cites element similar to claim 1, therefore similar rationale and grounds of rejection is applied.
Regarding Claim 10, Mostow discloses: A user terminal comprising a provider of a sound stream in real time and a sound card, (see fig. 1, the computer would be the terminal, and sound card is component of the computer enabling it to play sound or audio) the rest of the claim cites element similar to claim 1, therefore similar rationale and grounds of rejection is applied.
Regarding Claim 11, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: wherein the sound card is connected to one or more loudspeakers among the following: a loudspeaker of the user terminal, a loudspeaker of a device connected to the user terminal via a local area network. (see fig. 1, player (28))
Regarding Claim 12, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 1,
Mostow further discloses: further comprising a text display. (see fig. 1, computer display)
Regarding Claim 13, Mostow discloses all the elements of claim 12,
Mostow further discloses: further comprising a real-time word processing device capable of highlighting a group of words in the text based on the result and of providing the text with the highlighted group of words to the display. (col. 4, lines 22-29, if the user misreads a word, the tutoring function 22 may simply choose to highlight it and play its recorded pronunciation. Col. 4, lines 45-48, Some tutoring function actions consist of several actions queued sequentially. For example, the tutoring function 22 can rescue the user by reading part of a sentence and then highlighting the next word.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cutler US 20180218727 – discloses cloning voice of a speaker, and use that to generate speech and take over and play the audio when the speakers is talking during a live call but somehow network degrades the signal. See Abstract, para 0005-0018 for additional details.
Botros US 20220188361– discloses a smart voice assistant that creates predictions for long sentences when a user pauses while talking, it helps speaker or user finish talking. See Abstract, and para 0007 and 0098 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights