DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s claims filed 3/27/2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s IDS have been considered. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 8 merely cites functional descriptive material, computer program per se. More specifically, " a program configured to cause a computer to execute operations" alone does not fall within one of the four statutory categories, (i.e. a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), and thus cannot be patentable subject matter (see MPEP 2106).
A claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permits the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory (see MPEP 2106).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. $ I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, claim 2 cites,
“replenishing the buffer with text for a same number of seconds or words as a number of seconds or words of the detected first sentence; and
evaluating a split point of text accumulated in the buffer after replenishment, so as to detect a first sentence of the text.”
The Examiner notes “words as a number of seconds” appears to state that words are a number of seconds, or five words are equivalent to five seconds, and in either interpretation, requires clarification. This is unclear and does not reflect either accumulation embodiment as taught in paragraph [0037] of the applicant’s specification.
The Examiner further notes, “so as to detect a first sentence of the text” conflicts with the “first sentence of the text” that is detected already in claim one, which discusses “the first sentence” in claim 1 as well. The dependent claim needs to be clear on any distinction between detected sentences from a first accumulated text, and a second accumulated text.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 3, 5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannun et al. (Hannun, US 2023/0353399) in view of Roh et al. (Roh, US 2020/0159822).
As per claim 1, Hannun teaches an information processing method by a terminal apparatus, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring speech sound in a translation source language (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0011, 0078, 0079]-his speech, and audio steam as input into his system);
recognizing the speech sound and generating text corresponding to the speech sound (ibid-his transcription process, of the input speech generating the textual representation therefrom);
accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text [in a buffer] (ibid, paragraph [0095, 0074]-his audio segment generated from the stored transcription, based on a predetermined amount of time, see his “1 millisecond (ms), 0.5 seconds (s), 1 s, 2 s, 5 s, 10 s, 30 s, etc.” and also a predetermined number of words or characters);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated [in the buffer], so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid-his stored transcript, segmented into sentences, paragraph [0095]-his sentence segments from the transcription);
acquiring text in a translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence (ibid, Figs. 4, 5A, 5B and 7-his translation thereof, see Fig. 4 item 456); and
displaying the text in the translation target language and/or generating and
outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid-paragraphs [0088, 0012]-his translated and untranslated text message displayed to the user, his output provided as speech or text).
Hannun lacks explicitly teaching that which Roh teaches, accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text in a buffer (ibid, paragraph [0018-0022]-word stream entered into the buffer, and within the buffer utilizing time/word information for sentence segmentation);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated in the buffer, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid-see above sentence discussion, his sentence segmentation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and sentence segmentation as taught by Hannun with a buffer for temporarily storing the text data for segmentation as taught by Roh as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing continuous real-time translation based on segmented data in a buffer (ibid, Roh, paragraphs [0003-0005] and his abstract, the translation units providing desired translation performance).
As per claim 3, Hannun with Roh makes obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, the information processing method comprising in a case in which a split point cannot be detected, increasing text in the buffer until the split point can be detected (Roh, paragraphs [0023, 0024, 0075-0076], Table 3, paragraphs [0139-0145]-his input of text into the buffer, until segment is noted, based on the accumulation of text into the buffer, as similarly combined and motivated with respect to claim 1, detecting split point for language translation).
As per claim 5, Hannun with Roh make obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, the information processing method comprising displaying the text of the first sentence in the text in the translation source language and the text in the translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence in a pair (ibid, Hannun-paragraphs [0088, 0012]-his translated and untranslated text message displayed to the user, as the pair, his output provided as speech or text).
As per claim 8, claim 8 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the program is deemed to embody the method, such that Hannun with Roh make obvious a program configured to cause a computer to execute operations, the operations comprising (paragraphs [0108-0112]-his non-transitory computer readable media with processor-executable instructions):
acquiring speech sound in a translation source language (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
recognizing the speech sound and generating text corresponding to the speech sound (ibid);
accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text in a buffer (ibid);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated in the buffer, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid);
acquiring text in a translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence (ibid); and
displaying the text in the translation target language and/or generating and outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid).
As per claim 9, claim 9 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the terminal apparatus is deemed to embody the method, such that Hannun with Roh make obvious a terminal apparatus including a controller, wherein the controller is configured to execute operations comprising (Figs. 1, 2, paragraphs [0108-0112]-his system, device/apparatus and processor, his non-transitory computer readable media with processor-executable instructions):
acquiring speech sound in a translation source language (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
recognizing the speech sound and generating text corresponding to the speech sound (ibid);
accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text in a buffer (ibid);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated in the buffer, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid); acquiring text in a translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence; and
displaying the text in the translation target language and/or generating and outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid).
As per claim 10, claim 10 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method, such that Hannun with Roh make obvious an information processing method by an information processing system including a terminal apparatus and an information processing apparatus communicable with the terminal apparatus, the information processing method comprising (ibid-see claim 1, method, and (paragraphs [0108-0112]-his system, Figs. 1, 2, and above terminal apparatus discussion):
acquiring speech sound in a translation source language (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
recognizing the speech sound and generating text corresponding to the speech sound (ibid);
accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text in a buffer (ibid);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated in the buffer, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid);
acquiring text in a translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence (ibid); and
displaying the text in the translation target language and/or generating and outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid).
As per claim 11, claim 11 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method, such that Hannun with Roh make obvious an information processing system including a terminal apparatus and an information processing apparatus communicable with the terminal apparatus, the information processing system being configured to execute operations comprising (paragraphs [0108-0112]-his system, Figs. 1, 2, and above terminal apparatus discussion):
acquiring speech sound in a translation source language (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
recognizing the speech sound and generating text corresponding to the speech sound (ibid);
accumulating a first predetermined number of seconds or a first predetermined number of words of the text in a buffer (ibid);
detecting a split point of the text accumulated in the buffer, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid);
acquiring text in a translation target language that corresponds to the first sentence (ibid); and
displaying the text in the translation target language and/or generating and outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannun et al. (Hannun, US 2023/0353399) in view of Roh et al. (Roh, US 2020/0159822), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shih et al. (Shih, US 2022/0038581).
As per claim 2, Hannun with Roh make obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, the information processing method comprising:
replenishing the buffer with text [for a same number of seconds or words as a number of seconds or words of the detected first sentence] (ibid, see also paragraphs [0022-0024, 0145, 0004]-his accumulation and removal, and further accumulation of text stream into the buffer, and initialization of the buffer for sentence range text, the range as the number of words, or seconds, his plurality of inputs, input and corresponding range, based on the number of seconds/range as described above, for segmentation); and
evaluating a split point of text accumulated in the buffer after replenishment, so as to detect a first sentence of the text (ibid-see above unit and segmentation discussion, as applied to each incoming data into the buffer, and range detected). The motivation and combination of references, being similar in rational as seen in claim 1.
Hannun with Roh do not explicitly teach, that which Shih teaches, replenishing the buffer with text for a same number of seconds or words as a number of seconds or words of the detected first sentence (paragraph [0030]-his n seconds buffer, or any suitable set time buffer, which is replenished with text data, based on a sliding window, thus replenished with that amount of time with the text strings as they are continuously entered into the buffer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh and Shih to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and sentence segmentation as taught by Hannun with a buffer for temporarily storing the text data for segmentation as taught by Roh with having the buffer receive all text received in a same size for a further processing task as taught by Shih as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing continuous real-time translation based on segmented transcription data in a buffer, the transcription based on a fixed-sized sliding window buffer for real-time continuous streamed input analysis (ibid, Roh, paragraphs [0003-0005] and his abstract, the translation units providing desired translation performance, Shih paragraphs [0030-0033]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannun et al. (Hannun, US 2023/0353399) in view of Roh et al. (Roh, US 2020/0159822), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Palmquist (US 2004/0044517 and further in view of Sata (US 2011/0224968)
As per claim 4, Hannun with Roh make obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, but lack teaching that which Palmquist teaches, the information processing method comprising when detecting silence of a predetermined number of seconds or longer in the speech sound in the translation source language (paragraph [0015, 0082]-his detecting a pause, as the silence, in the audio message, and storing the audio message in memory/buffer) while accumulating the first [predetermined] number of seconds or the first predetermined number of words of the text in the buffer (ibid-while accumulating text into his buffer, the silence is assessed for a predetermined amount of time), acquiring text in the translation target language that corresponds to entire text in the buffer (ibid, paragraph [0015, 0082]-his translation into the second language).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh and Palmquist to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and sentence segmentation as taught by Hannun with a buffer for temporarily storing the text data for segmentation as taught by Roh with detecting a pause in in the speech sound prompting translation as taught by Palmquist as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing continuous real-time translation based on segmented data in a buffer, the translation prompted based on a predetermined amount of silence based on text accumulated in a fixed-sized buffer (ibid-Hannun-buffer size, Roh, paragraphs [0003-0005] and his abstract, the translation units providing desired translation performance, Palmquist-see above translation discussion, Sata paragraphs [0022-0024, 0057]-provides motivation for silence and predetermined period of time, and subsequent translation, of currently accumulated text within the buffer).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannun et al. (Hannun, US 2023/0353399) in view of Roh et al. (Roh, US 2020/0159822), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Palmquist (US 2004/0044517 and further in view Werfelli et al. (Werfelli, US 2023/0153547).
As per claim 6, Hannun with Roh make obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, but lacks that which Werfelli teaches, the information processing method comprising,
when detecting that output of the speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language is delayed for a predetermined time or longer relative to output of the speech sound in the translation source language (paragraphs [0022-0035, 0049]-his time difference calculation, the target language being longer than the original sound source language), accelerating a playback speed of the speech sound corresponding to the text in the translation target language (ibid-his “speeding up” of the play speed of the audio of the translation output).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh and Werfelli to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and output of audio as taught by Hannun with synchronizing the audio output based on a source language speech sound and target language speech sound as taught by Werfelli as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing synchronized translation based input steam (ibid, Werfelli, see also paragraphs [0045-0049]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannun et al. (Hannun, US 2023/0353399) in view of Roh et al. (Roh, US 2020/0159822), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tumkur Chandrashekar et al. (Tumkur, US 2023/0252246).
As per claim 7, Hannun with Roh make obvious the information processing method according to claim 1, but lack that which Tumkur teaches, the information processing method comprising:
when detecting [that an earphone with] a microphone using short-range wireless communication is connected to the terminal apparatus (paragraph [0060]-his wireless link, short-range communication channel pairing the device with an access point, as the terminal apparatus), displaying a list of one or more dialogue groups for which dialogue is to be translated, within a predetermined range from the terminal apparatus (paragraph [0012-0015]-his selection for message group/language list, within the proximate, as the predetermined range, terminal apparatus);
when receiving a selection for one of the dialogue groups in the list (ibid-see above selection discussion),
acquiring speech sound spoken in the selected dialogue group and translating the speech sound into text in a designated language (ibid, see also paragraphs [0042, 0042-0061]-his spoken input with respect to the dialogue group to receive messages in a particular target language); and
generating and outputting speech sound corresponding to the text in the designated language (ibid-his translated speech and audio output corresponding to the text message in the target language).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh and Tumkur to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and output of audio as taught by Hannun with utizlizing the translation system and audio output of translated messages with a short-range connected device as taught by Tumkur as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing translation based input steam to respective devices as they select their corresponding desired dialogue (ibid, Tumkur, see also abstract).
The above combination lacks explicitly teaching, that which Di Censo teaches, the device as, an earphone with a microphone (paragraph [0045, 0055]-his Bluetooth headsets, ear buds, etc. with microphone and communication link with a particular terminal, control device, for message reception in a target language).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Hannun and Roh and Tumkur and Di Censo to combine the prior art element of language translation using transcription and output of audio as taught by Hannun with utilizing the translation system and audio output of translated messages with a short-range connected device as taught by Tumkur with the connected device as an earphone as taught by Di Censo as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be providing translation based input steam to respective devices, including an earphone for generating multiple listening environments, as they select their corresponding desired dialogue (ibid, Tumkur, see also abstract, ibid-Di Censo, see also his abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Suzuki et al. (US 4,894,779) teaches, in a buffer, adding text to an incomplete sentence, wherein the division between a sentence is not detected, until a full sentence is detected. The full sentence as a split point.
Liang et al. (Liang, US 2023/0201717)-teaches loading an audio stream into buffers of a predetermined size, splits according to breaks or pauses, and processing the dialogue in buffers for displaying as quickly as possible, including translating the language of the dialogue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
10/9/2026
