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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory-type double patenting over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12323264 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Regarding Claim 1:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
1. A method, comprising: segmenting utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks;
1. A method, comprising: receiving a transcript that includes one or more transcriptions of utterances associated with a list of topics; for each topic in the list of topics, segmenting the utterances into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks, wherein a vector contains a number of times a lexical item occurs within a corresponding text block;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic using one or more zero-shot text classification techniques;
and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
Regarding Claim 2:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a title for the respective topic segment based on the topic.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a title for the respective topic segment based on the topic.
Regarding Claim 3:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the list of topics is received from a client device of the one or more client devices.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the list of topics is received from a client device of the one or more client devices.
Regarding Claim 4:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the segmenting is performed via one or more text tiling techniques.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the segmenting is performed via one or more text tiling techniques.
Regarding Claim 5:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the segmenting comprises: shifting a window over the utterances in the transcript one word at a time with a pre-specified window size to generate two blocks of utterances per each shift of the window; at each shift of the window, comparing the two blocks of the utterances to determine whether the two blocks are semantically similar; and defining a boundary between two topic segments when two blocks of utterances are semantically different.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the segmenting comprises: shifting a window over the utterances in the transcript one word at a time with a pre-specified window size to generate two blocks of utterances per each shift of the window; at each shift of the window, comparing the two blocks of the utterances to determine whether the two blocks are semantically similar; and defining a boundary between two topic segments when two blocks of utterances are semantically different.
Regarding Claim 6:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least a subset of the topic segments overlap with one or more of other topic segments.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least a subset of the topic segments overlap with one or more of other topic segments.
Regarding Claim 7:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more topic segments comprise a span of the transcript comprising one or more lines or utterances.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more topic segments comprise a span of the transcript comprising one or more lines or utterances.
Regarding Claim 8:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: classifying whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more language models.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: classifying whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more language models.
Regarding Claim 9:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
9. A system comprising: one or more processors configured to: segment utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary that is based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks;
9. A system comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive a transcript that includes one or more transcriptions of utterances associated with a list of topics; for each topic in the list of topics, segment the utterances into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary that is based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks, wherein a vector contains a number of times a lexical item occurs within a corresponding text block;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determine whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determine whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic via one or more zero-shot text classification techniques;
and transmit, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
and transmit, to one or more client devices a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
Regarding Claim 10:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify whether the respective topic segment is related to the topic based on a relatedness threshold.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify whether the respective topic segment is related to the topic based on a relatedness threshold.
Regarding Claim 11:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a starting timestamp and ending timestamp for each of the one or more topic segments.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a starting timestamp and ending timestamp for each of the one or more topic segments.
Regarding Claim 12:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to segment the utterances via linear segmentation for each of the one or more topics.
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to segment the utterances via linear segmentation for each of the one or more topics.
Regarding Claim 13:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
13. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to classify whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more language models.
13. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to classify whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more language models.
Regarding Claim 14:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to classify whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more keywords.
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to classify whether the one or more topic segments are related to the topic based on one or more keywords.
Regarding Claim 15:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
15. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to one or more client devices, a topic summary for a topic, the topic summary comprising one or more utterances from topic segments related to the topic.
15. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to one or more client devices, a topic summary for a topic, the topic summary comprising one or more utterances from topic segments related to the topic.
Regarding Claim 16:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: segmenting utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks;
16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a transcript that includes one or more transcriptions of utterances associated with a list of topics; for each topic in the list of topics, segmenting the utterances into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks, wherein a vector contains a number of times a lexical item occurs within a corresponding text block;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic;
for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic using one or more zero-shot text classification techniques;
and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
Regarding Claim 17:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, one or more utterance results based on a search for the topic within a communication session.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, one or more utterance results based on a search for the topic within a communication session.
Regarding Claim 18:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, analytics data related to one or more topics within a communication session.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, analytics data related to one or more topics within a communication session.
Regarding Claim 19:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the segmenting comprises one or more topic matching techniques.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the segmenting comprises one or more topic matching techniques.
Regarding Claim 20:
Instant Application 18538184
U.S. Patent No. 12323264
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the segmenting comprises one or more utterance boundary detection techniques.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the segmenting comprises one or more utterance boundary detection techniques.
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 as being directed towards an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a method, comprising: segmenting utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks; for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic; and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic“.
The claim is grouped as a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claim that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites additional elements of “transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 extra solution activity of “transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize <for example receiving or transmitting data over a network> as one of the well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding Claims 2-8, Claims 2-8 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea of Claim 1. Claims 2-8 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claims that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “segment utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary that is based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks; for each of the one or more topic segments, determine whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic“.
The claim is grouped as a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claim that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites additional elements of “a system comprising: one or more processors configured to: transmit, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 extra solution activity of “a system comprising: one or more processors configured to: transmit, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize <for example receiving or transmitting data over a network> as one of the well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding Claims 10-15, Claims 10-15 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea of Claim 9. Claims 10-15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claims that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 16, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “segmenting utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks; for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic“.
The claim is grouped as a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claim that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 extra solution activity of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize <for example receiving or transmitting data over a network> as one of the well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding Claims 17-20, Claims 17-20 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea of Claim 16. Claims 17-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional meaningful elements within the claims that separate the invention from an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the closest prior art of record Pappu et al (“Pappu”, US 20170062010, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025) in view of McDermid et al (“McDermid”, US 20220383865, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025) in further view of Johnson Premkumar et al (“Johnson”, US 20200342182, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025) does not teach a method, comprising: segmenting utterances of a transcript into one or more topic segments based on a determination of an utterance boundary based on a lexical score that is a vector product associated with an adjacent pair of text blocks; for each of the one or more topic segments, determining whether a respective topic segment is related to a topic; and transmitting, to one or more client devices, a list of topic segments that are related to the topic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shires et al (US 20200065379, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025), Abstract - The subject matter of this specification can be embodied in, among other things, a method that includes receiving two or more data sets each representing speech of a corresponding individual attending an internet-based social networking video conference session, decoding the received data sets to produce corresponding text for each individual attending the internet-based social networking video conference, and detecting characteristics of the session from a coalesced transcript produced from the decoded text of the attending individuals for providing context to the internet-based social networking video conference session.
Cartwright (US 20180191912, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025), Abstract - Various disclosed implementations involve processing and/or playback of a recording of a conference involving a plurality of conference participants. Some implementations disclosed herein involve receiving audio data corresponding to a recording of at least one conference involving a plurality of conference participants. In some examples, only a portion of the received audio data will be selected as playback audio data. The selection process may involve a topic selection process, a talkspurt filtering process and/or an acoustic feature selection process. Some examples involve receiving an indication of a target playback time duration. Selecting the portion of audio data may involve making a time duration of the playback audio data within a threshold time difference of the target playback time duration.
Szymanski et al (US 20210027783, included in IDS filed 4/22/2025), Abstract - A method and system of automatically identifying topics of a conversation are provided. An electronic data package comprising a sequence of utterances between conversation entities is received by a computing device. Each utterance is classified to a corresponding social action. One or more utterances in the sequence are grouped into a segment based on a deep learning model. A similarity of topics between adjacent segments is determined. Upon determining that the similarity is above a predetermined threshold, the adjacent segments are grouped together. A transcript of the conversation including the grouping of the adjacent segments is stored in a memory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights