DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea comprising a mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of receiving spoken information, interpreting or translating the information into another language, communicating the interpreted information, and recording the interpreted information into texture form. These limitation fall within the mental process groping of abstract ideas because the underlying activities of listening to spoken language, determining its meaning, translating the spoken language into another language, communicating the translation, and preparing a written transcript are activities that can practically be performed by a human, such as human interpreter or translator, either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Furthermore, the body-worn camera merely obtains the source information upon with the abstract translation process operates. Such data gathering is ancillary to the abstract information processing activity and does not itself constitute a technological improvement, wherein the combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 further recites interpreting and translating the spoken non-primary language in real time using artificial intelligence. This limitation merely specifying that artificial intelligence performs abstract activity without recite a particular machine-learning model, model architecture, training technique, or other technological implementation that improve the operation of the artificial intelligence system.
Claim 15 further recites enabling the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and communicate clearly when a human translator is unavailable. This limitation merely recites the intent benefit or results of providing translated information to the first responder. It does not specifically provide additional technological means for producing unexpected results.
Claim 16 further recites automatically detecting which language being spoken. This limitation determining or recognizing the language being spoken constitutes an evaluation of information that can practically be performed by a human listener familiar with the language.
Claim 17 further recites receiving audio capture by body-worn camera, translating the audio into a primary language, outputting the translation, generating a transcript, and storing the transcript linked to recorded audio and video. These limitations further specify the abstract process of acquiring, interpreting, communicating, recording, associating and storing information. Wherein the body-worn camera and data-storage function merely utilizing generic technological tools and an environment in which the abstract process is performed without a significant improvement.
Claim 18 further recites applying a timestamp to indicate when the interaction occurred and generating an AI summary providing condensed information and analysis of the interaction. This limitation of applying a timestamp merely associates conventional identifying information with stored information. Generating a summary of an interaction constitutes evaluating information and producing a condensed representation of that information, which can be performed mentally by a human reviewing the interaction either with or without AI process.
Claim 20 recites a real-time translation system comprising a body-worn camera, a translation module communicatively coupled to the body-worn camera, and a cloud storage platform. The claim 20 recites substantially the same abstract mental process identified with respect to claim 10. The characterization of the claim as a “system’ does not preclude the claim from reciting a mental-process where the functional limitations describe activities that otherwise may be performed mentally or by humans. This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters:
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 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 actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,583 B2 in view of Wu (Pub # US 2018/0109765 A1).
Claims 1-5, and 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,583 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in claim 6 of US Patent No. 12,392,583 claims body-worn safety device including a language translator module integrated in a center front area through which a wearer is able to bi-directionally communicate with an individual using a language other than the primary language spoken by the wearer when the language translator module is activated.
Claim 6 does not expressly teach that device further comprises a body-worn camera configure to record audio and video, an activation button associated with the translator module, and a speaker and microphone system.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches a wearable body camera configure to record video and audio and adapted to be worn by a law-enforcement officer comprises a push-to-talk button, a microphone, and a speaker for the benefit of utilizing the common component for communication.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include teach that device further comprises a body-worn camera configure to record audio and video, an activation button associated with the translator module, and a speaker and microphone system as shown in Wu, in combined with claim 6 of US Patent 12,392,583 for the benefit of utilizing the common component for communication.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1), and further in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1).
Consider claim 1, Bennet teaches s body worn safety device, comprising: a body-worn camera (BWC)configured to record audio and video of an interaction between a first responder and an individual in a field of view of the body-worn camera [0024]; a language translator module electronically coupled with the body-worn camera to enable the first responder to bi-directionally communicate with the individual in the field of view of the body-worn camera using any language other than a primary language spoken by the first responder [0111].
Bennet does not teach an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder to activate the language translator module when pressed, and to enable the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring; and a speaker and microphone system to provide auditory feedback and allow for two-way communication between the first responder and the individual.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches an activate button to activate the language translator module when pressed, and to enable the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring; and a speaker and microphone system to provide auditory feedback and allow for two-way communication between the first responder and the individual [0031, 0034, and 0035] for the benefit of utilizing common input and output device to provide an information.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura et al. teaches the an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder to activate the device [0064, 0065, and 0078] for the benefit of providing easy access to the user.
Therefore, it is obvious to an person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder to activate the language translator module when pressed, and to enable the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring; and a speaker and microphone system to provide auditory feedback and allow for two-way communication between the first responder and the individual as shown in Lewis et al. and Yshimura et al., in Bennet device for the benefit of utilizing common input and output device to provide an information and easy access for the operator.
Consider claim 2, Bennet teaches similar inventions.
Bennet does not teach wherein the language translator module is at least one of started and stopped using the activate button to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than a primary language spoken by the first responder.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches wherein the language translator module is at least one of started and stopped using the activate button [0036] for the benefit of activating and deactivating the device by demand.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura et al. teaches a start/stop control management to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than a primary language spoken by the first responder [0071] for the benefit of reducing destruction.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the language translator module is at least one of started and stopped using the activate button to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than a primary language spoken by the first responder as shown in Lewis et al. and Yoshimura et al., in Bennet device for for the benefit of activating and deactivating the device by demand and reducing destruction.
Consider claim 3, Bennet teaches similar invention.
Bennet does not teach wherein the language translator module to interpret and translate the spoken language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches wherein the language translator module to interpret and translate the spoken language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence [0034-0035] for the benefit of providing the information in the operator demand format.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the language translator module to interpret and translate the spoken language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet and Yoshimura et al. combined device for the benefit of providing the information in the operator demand format.
Consider claim 6, Bennet and Yoshimura et al. combined reference teaches similar invention.
Bennet and Yoshimura et al. combined reference does not teach wherein the language translator module automatically detects which language is being spoken by the individual.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches wherein the language translator module automatically detects which language is being spoken by the individual [0034] for the benefit of detecting the language environment and providing the information based on the language detected.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the language translator module automatically detects which language is being spoken by the individual as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet and Yoshimura et al. combined device for the benefit of detecting the language environment and providing the information based on the language detected.
Consider claim 7, Benent teaches the body worn safety device: wherein the language translation module configured to: receive audio captured by the body-worn camera using speech-to text and machine translation [0111].
Bennet does not teach translate the audio from a spoken non-primary language into a primary language in real-time during an interaction, and output the translation to the first responder during the interaction; and a cloud storage system configured to: generate a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and store the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches translate the audio from a spoken non-primary language into a primary language in real-time during an interaction, and output the translation to the first responder during the interaction; and a cloud storage system configured to: generate a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and store the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction [0044-0047] for the benefit of outputting the corresponding translate information.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include translate the audio from a spoken non-primary language into a primary language in real-time during an interaction, and output the translation to the first responder during the interaction; and a cloud storage system configured to: generate a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and store the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet and Yoshimura et al. combined device for the benefit of outputting the corresponding translate information.
Consider claim 9, Bennet teaches similar invention.
Bennet does not teach a visual indicator on the body worn safety device to light up when the translation is occurring, and when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura et al. teaches a visual indicator on the body worn safety device to light up when the translation is occurring, and when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation [0072-0074] for the benefit of utilizing the known visual operating-state indication to illuminate an indicator when the device is operating mode.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a visual indicator on the body worn safety device to light up when the translation is occurring, and when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation as shown in Yoshimura et al, in Bennet and Lewis et al. combined device for the benefit of utilizing the known visual operating-state indication to illuminate an indicator when the device is operating mode.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Wu (Pub # US 2018/0109765 A1).
Consider claim 4, the combined references teach similar invention.
The combined reference does not teach wherein an intuitive push-to-talk functionality and audio playback functionality of the body worn safety device to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein an intuitive push-to-talk functionality and audio playback functionality of the body worn safety device to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation [0006] for the benefit of inputting the information by operator demand.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein an intuitive push-to-talk functionality and audio playback functionality of the body worn safety device to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation as shown in Wu, in the combined device for the benefit of inputting the information by operator demand.
Consider claim 5, the combined reference teaches similar invention.
The combined reference does not each wherein real-time translation is enabled through the language translator module to enable the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches wherein real-time translation is enabled through the language translator module to enable the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable [0031, 0034, and 0035] for the benefit of providing the real-time translation at the location.
Therefore, it is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein real-time translation is enabled through the language translator module to enable the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable as shown in Lewis et al., in the combined device for the benefit of providing the real-time translation at the location.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Ong et al. (Pub # US 2020/0177655 A1).
Consider claim 8, Bennet teaches the body worn safety device: wherein the transcript includes a timestamp to indicate when the interaction occurred [0036].
Bennet does not teach an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction.
In the same field of endeavor, Ong et al. teaches an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction [0043-0044] for the benefit of compact the information.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction as shown in Ong et al., in the combined device for the benefit of compact the information.
Claims 10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1), and further in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1).
Consider claim 10, Bennet teaches a method of real-time translation during a first responder encounter, comprising: capturing live audio of an encounter using a body-worn camera (BWC) [0024]; providing the translated audio to the first responder in real-time [0111].
Bennet does not teach translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system [0034-0036] for the benefit of providing record for the information for later access.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of providing record for the information for later access.
Consider claim 14, Bennet teaches similar invention.
Bennet does not teach the method of real-time translation, comprising: interpreting the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence; and translating the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches real-time translation, comprising: interpreting the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence; and translating the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence [0034-0035] for the benefit of providing the information by demand.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include real-time translation, comprising: interpreting the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence; and translating the spoken non-primary language of the individual in real time using artificial intelligence as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of providing the information by demand.
Consider claim 15. Bennet teaches similar invention.
Bennet does not teach the method of real-time translation, comprising: enabling the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches the method of real-time translation, comprising: enabling the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable [0031, 0034, and 0035] for the benefit of providing the real-time information.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of real-time translation, comprising: enabling the first responder to quickly make informed decisions and to communicate clearly with the individual when a human translator is unavailable as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of providing the real-time information.
Consider claim16, Bennet teaches the similar invention.
Bennet does not teach the method of real-time translation, comprising: automatically detecting which language is being spoken by the individual.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches real-time translation, comprising: automatically detecting which language is being spoken by the individual [0034] for the benefit of detecting the language environment.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include real-time translation, comprising: automatically detecting which language is being spoken by the individual as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of detecting the language environment.
Consider claim 17, Bennet teaches the method of real-time translation, comprising: receiving audio captured by the body-worn camera; translating the audio from a spoken non-primary language into a primary language in real-time during an interaction [0111].
Bennet does not teach the; outputting the translation to the first responder during the interaction; and generating a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and storing the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches outputting the translation to the first responder during the interaction; generating a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and storing the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction [0034-0035, and 0044-0047] for the benefit of providing the information by demand.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include outputting the translation to the first responder during the interaction; and generating a transcript of the translated audio in the primary language, and storing the transcript linked to the recorded audio and video of the interaction as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of providing the information by demand.
Consider claim 20, Bennet teaches a method of real-time translation during a first responder encounter, comprising: capturing live audio of an encounter using a body-worn camera (BWC) [0024]; providing the translated audio to the first responder in real-time [0111].
Bennet does not teach translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system [0034-0036] for the benefit of providing record for the information for later access.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include translating the live audio from a non-primary language to a primary language during the encounter without losing situational awareness of a situation; and automatically generating a text transcript of the translated audio after the encounter; and storing the text transcript and associated captured video and audio on a cloud storage system as shown in Lewis et al., in Bennet device for the benefit of providing record for the information for later access.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1).
Consider claim 11, Bennet teaches the method of real-time translation, comprising: recording audio and video of the encounter between a first responder and an individual in a field of view of the body-worn camera (BWC) [0024].
Bennet does not teach activating the translating the live audio when an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder is pressed; enabling the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring through the activate button; providing auditory feedback to the individual and the first responder through a speaker on a body of the first responder; and enabling two-way communication between the first responder and the individual in the non-primary language through the speaker.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis teaches activating the translating the live audio when an activate button of the first responder is pressed; enabling the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring through the activate button; providing auditory feedback to the individual and the first responder through a speaker on a body of the first responder; and enabling two-way communication between the first responder and the individual in the non-primary language through the speaker [0031 and 0036] for the benefit of providing activating the device by demand.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura et al. teaches an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder is pressed [0077-0078] for the benefit of providing easy access.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include activating the translating the live audio when an activate button in a center front chest area of the first responder is pressed; enabling the first responder to maintain their eyes and attention on the individual while real time translation is occurring through the activate button; providing auditory feedback to the individual and the first responder through a speaker on a body of the first responder; and enabling two-way communication between the first responder and the individual in the non-primary language through the speaker as shown in Lewis et al. and Yoshimura et al., in Bennet method for the benefit of providing activating the device by demand and easy access.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Chien (Pub # US 2007/0065357 A1).
Consider claim 12, Bennet teaches similar invention.
Bennet does not teach the method of real real-time translation, comprising: starting the translating the live audio when the activate button to pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder, and stopping the translating the live audio when the activate button to not pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches translating the live audio when the activate button to pressed to enable the first responder [0036] for the benefit of activating the device.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Chien teaches when the activate button to pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder, and stopping the translating the live audio when the activate button to not pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder [0002 and 0004] for the benefit of activating the device by demand.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of real real-time translation, comprising: starting the translating the live audio when the activate button to pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder, and stopping the translating the live audio when the activate button to not pressed to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and to maintain situational awareness while communicating with the individual in any language other than the primary language spoken by the first responder as shown in Lewis et al. and Chien, in the combined method for the benefit of activating the device and activating the device by demand.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Wu (Pub # US 2018/0109765 A1).
Consider claim 13, the combined reference teaches similar invention.
The combined reference does not teach the method of real-time translation, comprising: providing an intuitive push-to-talk functionality and audio playback functionality through the activate button to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches teach the method of real-time translation, comprising: providing an intuitive push-to-talk functionality [0006 and 0031] for the benefit of providing the activation by demand.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis et al. teaches audio playback functionality through the activate button to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation [0031 and 0035] for the benefit of providing the feedback.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of real-time translation, comprising: providing an intuitive push-to-talk functionality and audio playback functionality through the activate button to enable the first responder to keep eyes up and focused on a situation as shown in Wu and Lewis et al., in combined method for the benefit of providing the activation be demand and providing feedback.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Ong et al. (Pub # US 2008/0177655 A1).
Consider claim 18, Bennet teaches applying a timestamp to indicate when the interaction occurred [0022].
Bennet and Lewis et al. combined reference does not teach generating an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction.
In the same field of endeavor, Ong et al. generating an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction [0043-0044] for the benefit of generating the compact information.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating an AI summary to provide condensed information and analysis of the interaction as shown in Ong et al., in Bennet and Lewis et al. combined method for the benefit of generating compact information.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet (Pub # US 2019/0020905 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (Pub U US 2017/0060850 A1) and as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (Pub # US 2016/0344983 A1).
Consider claim 19, Bennet and Lewis et al. combined reference teaches the similar method.
Benent and Lewis et al. does not teach illuminating a body safety device when the translation is being spoken, and illuminating the body safety device when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura et al. teaches illuminating a body safety device when the translation is being spoken, and illuminating the body safety device when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation [0072-0074] for the benefit of providing the indication when the activating device.
Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include illuminating a body safety device when the translation is being spoken, and illuminating the body safety device when the activate button is pressed by the first responder to start translation as shown in Yoshimura et al., in Bennet and Lewis et al. combined method for the benefit of providing the indication when the activating device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights