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 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 - 30 is/are directed to the abstract idea relating to a mental process. Specifically, the claims are directed to determining data associated with audio of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment, associating compensation information with the at least the portion of the word, and sending based on the associated compensation information and a request for the content asset by a computing device associated with a user with the hearing impairment, audio associated with the at least the portion of the word (Specification: [0013]). Both of the “determining” steps are a mental process, as is the “based on the timing information”. The only real additional element is “causing…output of audio”, which is recited at such a high level that is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are steps that are well-known routine and conventional implemented on a computer and do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26) recites a method (system/non-transitory CRM) for a user determining select words that a viewer has trouble hearing based on the user profile, and reading out those specific words to the viewer. These steps describe the concept of collecting viewership information, analyzing it and modifying results, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas, such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group. The concept of claim 1 (and similarly claims 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the concept of Claim 1 of analyzing viewer data and modifying it is an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26 additionally recites the system comprises a server and computing device to perform the steps and/or recites a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to perform the steps. These elements are all recited at such a high level of generality and amount to generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities such as data retrieval and processing. Merely utilizing computing devices to output the modified audio data does not impose a meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea alone. Thus, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. 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 is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s specification states:
[0098] FIG. 7 depicts a computing device that may be used in various aspects, such as the servers, modules, and/or devices depicted in FIG. 1. With regard to the example architecture of FIG. 1, the content device 100, services device 120, user device 130, display device 150, and audio device 160 may each be implemented in an instance of a computing device 700 of FIG. 7. The computer architecture shown in FIG. 7 shows a conventional server computer, workstation, desktop computer, laptop, tablet, network appliance, PDA, e-reader, digital cellular phone, or other computing node, and may be utilized to execute any aspects of the computers described herein, such as to implement the methods described in relation to FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6.
Which states that any device or CPU can be used, such as any server, desktop computer, laptop, tablet, PDA, cellular phone, etc., to perform the abstract limitation, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and this application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” but utilizing current technologies. For the determining, determining, and causing steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements nor the steps are anything other than a generic. The “determining” step is both part of a mental process, as is the “associating…” step. The additional element “sending…audio,” is recited at a high level which would make it insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claims recite additional elements regarding what the compensation information comprises, output of the audio comprises, etc. These elements merely recite more abstract steps of the abstract idea identified in Claim 1 above and are steps that appear to be merely performed by a generic programmed computer. As such, the limitations of the dependent claims do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Claims 1-30 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 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, 6, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of conflicting U.S. Patent No. 11582532 in view of Koul (2018/0352390).
Claims 1, 6, and 11 of instant application 19/209540 recites a method comprising: a computing device associated with a user with a hearing impairment; a server configured to: determining, based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment; associating compensation information with the at least the portion of the word; sending, based on the associated compensation information and a request for the content asset by a computing device associated with a user with the hearing impairment, audio associated with the at least the portion of the word.
The method of U.S. Patent No. 11582532 claims 1, 9 and 17 differ from instant applications claims 1, 6 and 11 in that it fails to disclose determining, by a server and based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment;
In an analogous art, Koul discloses determining, by a server and based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment ([0014]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11582532 claims 1, 9, and 17 to include the abovementioned limitations, as taught by Koul, for the advantage of providing an improved means of hearing to those with a hearing impairment.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, respectively of the conflicting Patent.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of conflicting U.S. Patent No. 11582532 in view of Koul (2018/0352390).
Claims 1, 6, and 11 of instant application 19/209540 recites a method comprising: a computing device associated with a user with a hearing impairment; a server configured to: determining, based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment; associating compensation information with the at least the portion of the word; sending, based on the associated compensation information and a request for the content asset by a computing device associated with a user with the hearing impairment, audio associated with the at least the portion of the word.
The method of U.S. Patent No. 11582532 claims 1, 9 and 17 differ from instant applications claims 1, 6 and 11 in that it fails to disclose determining, by a server and based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment;
In an analogous art, Koul discloses determining, by a server and based on data related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word associated with a hearing impairment ([0014]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11582532 claims 1, 9, and 17 to include the abovementioned limitations, as taught by Koul, for the advantage of providing an improved means of hearing to those with a hearing impairment.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, respectively of the conflicting Patent.
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, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18-21, 23-26, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koul (2018/0352390) in view of Suhami (2012/0282976).
As for claims 1, 6, and 11, Koul discloses:
a computing device associated with a user with a hearing impairment (“…user is hearing-impaired and may have difficulty recognizing specific words…” [0014]);
a server ([0013], [0053], [0054]) configured to:
determining, based on data (“interval”: [0024]) related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word ([0024]) associated with a hearing impairment (Specific words are detected in real-time and users are notified when the specific word is detected. A buffered window may correspond with an interval of the sound utterances that is associated with a detection of the spoken word. An interval may be predetermined (e.g. 15 seconds, 30 seconds) relative to the point in which the specific word, name, etc. is detected; [0013], [0014], [0024], [0025]);
However, Koul fails to disclose:
associating compensation information with the at least the portion of the word;
sending, based on the associated compensation information and a request for the content asset by a computing device associated with a user with the hearing impairment, audio associated with the at least the portion of the word.
In an analogous art, Suhami discloses:
associating compensation information with the at least the portion of the word (“…improve intelligibility of the detected speech is to compensate for the loss of hearing of selected audio notes, mostly at low and high frequencies in each ear”; [0016], [0096], [0097]);
sending, based on the associated compensation information and a request for the content asset (user requests TV content: [0097]) by a computing device associated with a user with the hearing impairment, audio associated with the at least the portion of the word (Speech intelligibility is improved. Amplification is selective, specially at frequencies where the sensitivities are lost. The portions of the words that the user cannot hear are adjusted. [0016], [0096], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koul to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Suhami, for the advantage of improving speech intelligibility.
As for claims 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28, Suhami discloses wherein the audio associated with the at least the portion of the word is stored in advance of the request for the content asset by the computing device ([0033], [0037], [0096], [0159]).
As for claims 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, and 29, Suhami discloses wherein the server stores user data comprising a hearing profile associated with the user with the hearing impairment, and the hearing profile comprises hearing loss frequencies, (hearing profile of the user; [0096]).
As for claims 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30, Suhami discloses wherein the impairment rules associate compensation information with one or more frequencies (“Amplification has to be selective, specially at frequencies where the sensitivities are lost”: [0096]).
As for claims 16, 21, and 26, Koul discloses:
a computing device associated with a user with a hearing impairment (“…user is hearing-impaired and may have difficulty recognizing specific words…” [0014]); and
a server ([0013], [0053], [0054]) configured to:
determine, based on data (“interval”: [0024]) related to audio information of a content asset, at least a portion of a word ([0024]) associated with the hearing impairment (Specific words are detected in real-time and users are notified when the specific word is detected. A buffered window may correspond with an interval of the sound utterances that is associated with a detection of the spoken word. An interval may be predetermined (e.g. 15 seconds, 30 seconds) relative to the point in which the specific word, name, etc. is detected; [0013], [0014], [0024], [0025]);
However, Koul fails to disclose:
associating at least the portion of the word to audio data of the content asset; and
sending, based on the association of the at least the portion of the word to the audio data of the content asset and a request for the content asset by a computing device, timing information of the audio data associated with at least the portion of the word and an association of compensation information with at least the portion of the word.
In an analogous art, Suhami discloses:
associating at least the portion of the word to audio data of the content asset (“…improve intelligibility of the detected speech is to compensate for the loss of hearing of selected audio notes, mostly at low and high frequencies in each ear”; [0016], [0096], [0097]); and
sending, based on the association of the at least the portion of the word to the audio data of the content asset and a request for the content asset (user requests TV content: [0097]) by a computing device, timing information of the audio data associated with at least the portion of the word and an association of compensation information with at least the portion of the word (Speech intelligibility is improved. Amplification is selective, specially at frequencies where the sensitivities are lost. The portions of the words that the user cannot hear are adjusted. [0016], [0096], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koul to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Suhami, for the advantage of improving speech intelligibility.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koul and Suhami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newell (9998794).
As for claims 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27, Koul and Suhami fail to disclose wherein the data related to audio information of the content asset comprises closed caption data.
In an analogous art, Newell discloses the data related to audio information of the content asset comprises closed caption data (To determine if part of the media content event that is causing the user confusion is the audio part, a portion the closed captioning is analyzed; col. 25, lines 47-67, col. 27, line 64-col. 28, line 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koul and Suhami to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Newell, for the advantage of precisely determining the specific portion that is causing confusion to the user.
Relevant Prior Art
Svendsen (2015/0287408) teaches providing speech recognition to a hearing impaired user on a mobile device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights